Carol Ashey

ENGL 413
Dr. Parker
2-8-2014
Shakespeare Test
The first film we watched was an authentic and traditional version of Shakespeares As
You Like It. The only modern changes made were having women actors and modern day
pronunciation of the language, but aside from that, the costumes and stage were as authentic as
possible.
Having never seen a Globe production of any play by Shakespeare, and after having seen
pictures of the stage, I wondered what the experience was like. One of the first things that I
noticed in this film was the simple use of scenery. I liked the quick change from the court to the
woods with the fabric rolling up the pillars. I thought that was a brilliant way to move from one
scene to another, especially since the way I pictured the scene changes to be more like modern
day, with fade out and fade in of the lights. When reading the play, I thought that all of the
monologues were spoken as if to oneself; after seeing the play onstage, I noticed that the
characters acknowledged the audience more often than is usually done, and some characters
breaking the fourth wall entirely and addressing the audience directly.
Seeing this interaction between the actors and the audience drew me in to what watching
a play would have been like in Shakespeares day. Having the plays done in this traditional
manner works because it gives the audience a glimpse into the past as to what costumes were
used, how the language was spoken, and as close an experience as possible to what Shakespeare
might have performed it. For example, having some of the actors begin in the audience during a

Ashey 2
scene, draws the audience in and makes them feel like a part of the story taking place on stage.
Another example, is yet again the scene changes; seeing as how some of the scenes in As You
Like It are really short, having the actors simultaneously exit and enter made for really smooth
transitions and kept the play moving along. Because most modern plays do not do this, they can
feel longer because the scene changes take more time.
The second film we watched was Ralph Fiennes version of Coriolanus. When I read this
play, and how it was set in Roman times, I wondered how the scenery looked as well as how the
battles were staged. I assumed the costumes to be like that of the Roman era. When the class first
began watching the film, I was completely sucked in from the first scene and loved watching
every second. The first thing that I noticed was the opening scene, which shows the guerilla
conflict between the two countries and the political unrest of the people evidenced by graffiti on
the walls. The actor who played the First Citizen grabbed the audiences attention by having the
camera follow her to a meeting of a group to usurp Coriolanus power in the city.
The choice to have the announcements of the politicians be as television broadcasts,
although an ultra modern spin as opposed to the original town crier method, worked really well
because it gave the feeling of cutting edge news within the city. It also worked well because it
allowed the showing of both plots of Coriolanus dealings and the dealings of the people at the
same time. The other update that I thought worked really well was the modern military and
modern weapons. Portraying Coriolanus as the head of a platoon of men solidified his position as
a leader, especially during the scene that leads to the fistfight between him and his enemy,
Aufidius.

Ashey 3
What I liked most about this movie was the way the language was blended with the
action. I loved how the directorSpielbergkept Shakespeares language. While I understand
that this is what all directors and producers do for each remake of a Shakespeare play into a film,
I thought it worked especially well with this movie, specifically on the scene where Coriolanus
and his men are attacking the area and Aufidius men ambush them. The use of the word away
as substitute for retreat I thought worked better. I think more action movies should have
language like Shakespeare; it adds depth to the film and the characters.
Another modern update I thought worked really well was the setting; I felt like I was
looking at events from the 1990s in an eastern European city that was going through civil
unrest. Another was the interaction of the politicians with the masses trying to persuade them to
support Coriolanus. In that same scene, what worked was the First Citizen rousing the crowd and
managing to sway them to her side in front of the politicians. That was hard for me to picture
when I was reading the play, but seeing it portrayed as a rabble rouser flip-flop government.
An additional aspect I thought worked with this version of Coriolanus was having Coriolanus
public speaking venues televised. I felt that this added and magnified the feeling of public
scrutiny; not just from the live audience, but from the eyes of the cameras as well. I also
thought that Ralph Fiennes portrayal of Coriolanus was really well done; I could feel his pride
emanate from the way he carried himself on screen as well as his rigidity in front of the televised
portions. The other actor portrayal I thought was really well done was Vanessa Redgrave as
Coriolanus mother, Volumnia. She was exactly how I portrayed the character in my head while
reading the play.

Ashey 4
The third and final film viewed was Robert Bennetts Hamlet starring David Tenant.
One of the first things that I noticed about the film was that most of the interior of the castle was
made of some dark stone; either that or the wall drapes were black. In any case, the black interior
exuded an ominous feeling; coupled with the surveillance camera shots throughout the film, it
successfully carried the theme of Whos Watching Who? The one thing that I think did not
work is when Hamlet sees his fathers ghost in his mothers room and the actor is the same as his
uncle (Patrick Stewart) only with a long beard. Even though this is a minor detail, I felt that it
was a cop-out. The only way that would feel acceptable to me is if they made mention of the
fact that Hamlet and Claudius were identical twins.
I thought David Tennants portrayal of Hamlet was really well done. Having seen only
one other version of Hamlet (1996 Kenneth Branagh), in comparing the two portrayals, I thought
that David Tennants was more realistic than Kenneth Branagh, specifically with the beginning
and the scene where the play within the play is performed. With Tennant as Hamlet, I could see
the anger and heartbreak at the loss of his father and remarriage of his mother. With Branagh, the
acting was more static, as, in my opinion, he was brooding the entire time and more
philosophical. With Tennants Hamlet, the play within the play scene added the extra layer of
meta with Hamlet filming the play, and the feeling that everyone is being watched. I also felt
that Tennants version of Hamlet, the difference between him acting crazy and sane was more
defined than in Branaghs version.
The last aspect of this version of Hamlet that I thought worked was the portrayal of
Ophelias going insane scene. It felt realistic, in the manner that the actor Mariah Gale added

depth and anger by screaming occasionally, showing the inner anger and frustration at Hamlet
for messing up her life.