Poetry: Hamlet's soliloquy Act 3, Scene 1 - interpretations
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2019
- Celebrating 300 subscribers and 100K views with different interpretations of Hamlet's soliloquy from Kenneth Branagh, David Tennant ( 0:02:44) , Andrew Scott ( 0:05:40) and Tom Hiddleston ( 0:09:33)
Sources
Kenneth Branagh: Hamlet (film, 1996)
David Tennant: Hamlet (film, 2009)
Andrew Scott: Hamlet (recorded at the Harold Pinter Theatre, 2017)
Tom Hiddleston: Dragon School Book of Verse (reading for the audio CD, 2016).
Enjoy and thanks so much to everyone! 💚
DISCLAIMER: This is a non-monetized channel. No copyright infringement intended. I created/edited this video for entertainment and educational purpose only. I do not own nor claim to own anything in this video. The videos/audios/photos are property of their rightful owners. All credit goes to the owners of all the materials used in this video. #poetry #poem #actorsreadingpoetry
I don’t know which one is better but Andrew Scott made me UNDERSTAND what Hamlet is talking about.
If you haven’t seen it, you should watch Baz Luhrmann’s, Romeo and Juliet.
I’ve seen many, many versions, but this is the only one where I truly understood the heat and passion the liver share. And how it makes everything go wrong.
I had the exact same thought like i didn't think that to be possible. I love to listen to all of them but wow
Exactly, his and David Tennant's make it understandable and also make it feel very real.
Exactly, same
Andrew Scott's has amde Hamlet, nay Shakespeare, so approachable. His pauses, nuances, and expressions of such language make it so understandable... as if it was common now
David Tennant & Andrew Scott deliver it most realistically. It's clear in the way they act that Hamlet is having a flow of thought, discovering the ideas as he goes along. Whereas most of the time I hear this monologue it's so apparent that it's a monologue- like all planned out from the beginning, the speaker knows where they're going & how they'll get there. Andrew & David make it look a genuine discovery which is much more real.
Additionally, David's is the only one I've seen where his utter DEPRESSION is evident. He's literally trying to decide whether to commit suicide. The flat affect, very low energy shown in how patiently he delivers it, how many pauses... and his despair at the uncertainty of what death holds is just so palpable.
When I first saw David's version it was honestly the first time I haven't cringed at how rote this speech has become through familliarity.
Tennant’s version feels the most authentic and I like the intense emotional approach to it, it helps you really feel the existential turmoil of hamlet. Scott’s version is also really really great and authentic in its own way although it feels more like a presentation than a thought process
Hearing Andrew Scott's version was the first time I understood what Hamlet was saying.
*Exactly.*
Andrew Scott’s Hamlet is literately thinking this soliloquy as he says it. It’s as if it comes to him with every passing line. I’ve never seen it performed like that, by far the best
Agreed. David Tennent's version sounds more like a regret made by someone who did indeed take their own life. I find it quite puzzling.
That the same guy who played edgar in king lear?
Hi @Aescerys, yes Andrew Scott played Edgar.
@@JohnWasinger I really love Tennant’s: I find it really relatable. For a character who has been depressed and tormented for a while, he’s probably considered suicide before articulating it, and his exhaustion and pain is infectious (I get a headache just watching his screwed up forehead and nauseated-looking mouth). And I think the “regret” you see is observant. That’s a good point: he does seem to already be in regret but maybe that’s because he regrets now not being able to take his life. Can’t bear to live, cant bear to die.
I think Andrew Scott had no Shakespeare experience before this? I think I read that somewhere. Discovering it as he goes would reflect that in a meta way, making it about discovery, if that is indeed true.
I read a comment recently that Andrew Scott’s interpretation was the first time the commenter understood the speech fully. That was exactly how I felt when I saw David Tennant’s Hamlet when it came out. It was the perfect version for me then, and it’s still my favourite to this day.
I think its interesting, the two interpretations. Both are great, but say very different things about the character. Andrew Scott's H seems to be discovering things as he goes along. You can see the thoughts. David Tennant's H is rehashing something he has already been thinking about, possibly for weeks. Scott's is manic and mad, Tennant's is depressed and weepy, Branagh's angry. Where as Hiddleston's is different again; because he isn't performing it he reads it like a poem. Which, more than the others, makes it Shakespear's own words. Fascinating.
@@peechykean Oh, that’s a perfect way of describing them. Thank you, I’ll remember that!
It would be interesting to know how Shakespeare thought it should be performed, and if he’d like any of these.
@@Blodsten90 I agree! Wouldn't it be amazing. I would hope that he would like all the different interpretations, how different people connect with it differently.
Hamlet unedited is around three and a half hours. Maybe this is why many actors feel compelled to rush it a bit. Tennant, here, takes his time - and that works well for me. Loved all these versions however.
These are all good, obviously -- but Andrew Scott's is a genuine revelation.
He makes the language as natural as breathing. He makes Hamlet feel like a bloke I might know and worry about. I'm honestly floored.
Agree, was just about to make a similar comment. He's an extraordinary actor.
I’ve never seen Andrew Scott’s until now. It’s by far the best. I think the problem people have with it is it’s more theatrical with the large gestures and hand movements It is in front of a live audience right? All the other versions are filmed versions where you’re able to be subtler and let the camera and blocking do some of the work for the performance. But this version was all him. All emotion
I agree completely. It's much harder to convey feelings in front of a live audience that's sitting metres and metres away than to a camera. That being said, I liked Tennant best, but that's because I like David Tennant better than Andrew Scott^^.
why does scott's remind me of a philosophy professor having an existential crisis in the middle of a lecture
7:07 *stops rubbing chest*
"Aye...there's the rub"
It is the core of Shakespeare’s genius, that there is room for so many interpretations over 400 years after the original premiere.
Wow - Kenneth Branagh speaks to himself as a would be despot. David Tennent we peer into his inner thoughts. Andrew Scott talks directly to us as if riffing a TED talk and Tom Huddleston ‘s performance paints a logical, cold and calculating Hamlet.
A TED talk 😄
Perfect assessment! I agree completely.
They all have something to bring to this, but Andrew Scott’s, although not a typical rendition, is stunningly brilliant. He doesn’t hit us over the head reminding us of the rhyme and rhythm, but rather trusts the poetry to convey Hamlet’s story with a subtler use of those elements. The others, for me, seem just a little too much like an ASMR triggering video…a successful one.
Andrew Scott making the character a part of himself, rather himself part of the character.
Such genius 6:22.
I love how he's dropping the fourth-wall and adapting a discussion with the audience, as if thoughts manifest to words with zero filter. Never have I seen this soliloquy performed in such a manner. I'm in love. So underrated is this performance. ❤
I find the Scott interpretation definitely draws out the ethical ambiguity and relativity that can be associated with Hamlet's character (the so called "hero-villain" element of the character), which is something Scott himself said he recognised and really wanted to explore. You can truly question whether this Scott's Hamlet is actually psychotic or not, placing you the viewer in the same boat as Polonius et al.
There is also a sort of delicious irony in the fact that he uses so many hand gestures when combined with the Hamlet character telling actors in a play he is directing to stop using too many hand gestures. Further to this point, Scott's interpretation of this soliloquy is (like Brannagh's; Brannagh through his film direction even puts us behind and then in front of the mirror as if to raise this!) a fierce attack on the fourth wall. As Harold Bloom and others have pointed out, the dialogue of the character almost seems to protest their own involvement in the story; whilst appearing self-reflective, the words are arguably not consistent with the character's own actions (Hamlet is very deliberate and passionate about his actions in the play, like the elaborate testing of the theory that his father was murdered, the deliberately killing of other characters etc.) and the words seem more aimed directly at us the audience and their thought processes. Scott brings this sense out in a way which is so confronting to the watcher - it is not at all like the Tennant interpretation, which is more a great literal acting out of at depressed, self questioning person.
Having said that, I am not sure that I like the changes of words in his version of this soliloquy. I don't have an issue too much with changing words if the meaning is still captured and I know that as part of the production they were trying to make it more accessible to people that had never seen Shakespeare before (particularly younger people). Disprized to despised ("The Pangs of D'sprized Love, ...") maybe makes sense but I kind of feel that the former means for the other person not to value the love, whereas despised makes it sounds like hated love, which I find more difficult to link with the concept of pangs. Changing spurns to spurs ("The spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes...") I feel misses the point a bit in as much as it describes a person that is waiting something out patiently in the hope of a reward that never comes, as opposed to just the pain of the waiting. And Pith to Pitch ("...and enterprises of great pith and moment in this regards are turned awry" - I get that there is a modern physics language around values of pitch and moment as a form of movement which may turn (and a book by this name even!), but Pith as clarity makes a lot more sense in the context of the suicidal enterprises being entertained in the dialogue.
Yeah Scott's performance, to me anyway, felt a lot like how my own internal monologue works when I feel depressed.
Tennant portrayed the most troubled of Hamlets. My favorite.
Scott's Hamlet honestly feels so raw and human. Every word and line that comes out of his mouth is so clear, it feels like you can understand and relate to each word that he says. It's amazing. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he expresses it in a way that's more modern, a way that relates with our present way of communicating.
Each portrayal brilliant in it’s own performance. David’s is probably the closest to how Shakespeare wrote it to be played: melancholy, depressed, wondering. Andrew’s is a beautiful portrayal. Tom is reading, not acting, and he reads it as was written. His stage performance of this soliloquy is quite moving.
Most beautiful voice: Hiddleston. Most fascinating interpretation: Scott
Yes
Yes, I think Andrew Scott makes it clear what is written, being said and thought.
David Tennant gets my vote.
The use of the mirror in Branagh's version is simple but so effective. He's able to speak directly to the audience without breaking the fourth wall, and we see this battle within himself depicted visually.
I wholeheartedly agree!
How wonderfully different they are. For me Tennant is best although shortened.
i dont know what yall are talking about, andrew scott nails this piece. while delivering a performance that answers the requests of the script, he is also basically explaining the monologue while all the others just soullessly read it as if they are all reading from the same "how to do that one scene" guide book
Andrew Scott's thread takes one through Hamlet's thoughts perfectly it is a beautiful interpretation, so human. The soliloquy is an existential question asked and understood by Hamlet, it is a call to action driving him further towards his inevitable doom.
scott is absolutely unmatched in my opinion he absolutely reinvigorated this role
Tom Hiddleston has an angelic voice I shall never forget!
Branagh had me drama wise. But frankly Scott actually made me feel like it was a real person. Definately unorthodox compared to others. Its been years since i studied Hamlet but isnt he contemplating suicide in this scene? Scott was the only performance that made me feel like the person in front of me was actually struggling with the decision and considering the consequences.
but no one writes plays of real people. hence why its called theatre. its larger than life-and entertaining. I would never pay 200.00 to see my neighbor doing anything.
I love Branaugh's approach - cynical and seemingly unhinged. Scott's is such a great interpretation as well, highlighting life's absurdism
I love all of them for very different reasons but Andrew’s is my favorite. His interpretation and inflection is the only time I’ve actually completely understood what Hamlet was saying. Soliloquies are exceedingly difficult to parse out but I easily related meaning to his work.
Oh, Ken. A good, serviceable Larry Olivier-style delivery. I will always love David Tennant and Andrew “Hot Priest” Scott.
I’ve never seen Andrew Scott act before. That’s blown my mind. Literally given me a new take on a play I thought I knew inside and out. David Tennant is amazing. Was lucky enough to see him play the Dane at the RSC and it remains a highlight of my life. Thanks for the upload. What a great idea ❤️
Andrew Scott, dear lord absolutely visceral ❤
Love Scott's interpretation. Urgent, pensive, unsure, raw.
Andrew Scott; confessions of the souls deepest secrets brought to the stage
Loved this. 4 different takes on such a deep troubling aside. Brannaghs felt like someone who was working out a problem and coming to a conculsion. He was resigned to a course of action and was looking for alternatives. Tenants was like someone who has come to conclusion and wishes for it with a sense of dread. Relief in finally knowing what he had to. Scott's felt like someone who had lived with those thoughts and with a great sadness knew there was no other way out and by doing so was gaining control.
tennants version was shortened , [bare bodkin etc] , branagh just plays branagh , hiddleston is clear and spoken more like real speech. Andrew Scott however delivers this like a newly forming thought, which is how i always felt this was - the idea and realisation that Hamlet has in making his internal argument. Andrews' Hamlet is masterful.
I've always felt Hamlet is fully and completely contemplating suicide, not just forming a thought. So to me, Scott's version, in this clip, felt more like a TED talk than a genuine soul in need. So, in my very humble and unlearnéd opinion, Tennant was best.
Andrew Scott gives it a new dimension. Brilliant
David Tennant and Tom Hiddleston...the best ❤️❤️
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous adverts,
Placed inappropriately in the midst of a soliloquy
That one dreams to die, to end
The heart-ache of this monstrous apparatus
I think I love you
Scott and Tennant, hands down. Scott shows us the real or feigned "madness," whereas Tennant, the pathos. Brilliant! I expected much more from Branagh, who didn't make me feel anything, and in Hiddleston's interpretation, he is simply reading it, as it says in the hashtag #actorsreadingpoetry. Lovely voice, but he is only reading it, not acting. Now, I'm going to watch Cumberbach's version! Thank you for this lovely video!
Branagh feels like he's reading a script. Hiddleston feels like he's reading a bedtime story to a kid. There's none of the grief/depression/weariness that you would expect from someone who is literally contemplating ending their own life. Tennant feels like someone deep in the depths of grief. And Scott feels like someone who is numb, who is looking at his potential death with an intellectual curiosity because he's too depressed to care.
Good summary! Crap, the lot of ‘em!
My favourite is still Tennant, who changed my sense of the words. But Scott is definitely interesting. According to one of my profs, one of Shakespeare's greatest innovations was representing the elaboration of thought in real time. Scott is very obviously striking in amplifying that aspect of the text. I just don't know how I feel about the tone he sets, which is sometimes almost silly, as if he keeps coming at punchlines. If I saw the rest of the performance I might feel differently. I know in the rest of Tennant's performance he can really nail Hamlet's gadfly-ish, innapropriate levity. For this soliloquy though, I think Tennant did well to depart from that side of the character. I don't think Hamlet has the same uneasy mockery in his relationship with himself as he has with others, and even if he did, this soliloquy is like a very quiet but implacable inner voice that has been there underneath everything else inside him, and takes over the stage for this moment. I think Tennant grasps that intimacy and bleakness. That's just me 🤟
Not Deep enough aunt Andrew, in my opinion.
The Andrew Scott interpretation is something special. Really unexpected and powerful.
Although I find Andrew Scott very good, it somehow troubles me that a soliloquy which by definition is meant to convey the idea that one is talking to oneself is actually addressing the audience.
It's certainly unique. There are aspects of it I love, and others I hate. He's definitely more metered and contemplative than others, Probably because they are usually trying to compress a 4 hour play into a movie. But I want it to smack of melancholy. He's giving "To be, or not to be - the Ted Talk".
@@christaylor8271 I had the exact same thought - that it was a TED talk!
Andrew Scott - wow - utterly brilliant!
Tennant sounded very angsty and young and I like the pauses he left in there. Andrew Scott just did it wonderfully different. He comes across as akward and I like that. I like Hiddleston in general but he was just reading the lines, not acting it but then.....it was just a recording, no play. Kenneth just doesn´t do it for me. I saw his Hamlet movie when it came out and I was personally annoyed (just my personal opinion)....in his (from what I remember in the movie) scene I like the background janitor (or servant) best, who was just mopping up the stuff from the party. The scene was so funny to me. Imagining the dude cleaning up, listening to Hamlet´s speech.
I like Kenneth in comedic roles a lot better. Whenever he does Drama it feel like he is trying too hard to be epic.
But then again, it is just personal perception. I saw a short clip of Benedict Cumberbatch playing Hamlet and I would love to see that in full. I had to laugh so hard. He looked and sounded like his Hamlet was just short of starting a World War. But it looked fun.
The 3rd one was Hamlet's TED Talk. I liked it.
I normally love everything that Branagh does, but in this case, the setting seems over stylized. It doesn't feel personal. David Tenet hits the mark on this one for me. Tom's dialog is what I would want if just listening too. Wow!
I have the full version of Branagh's Hamlet, and I was disappointed by it. He wanted to film the entire play with no cuts or exclusions -- which of course made it very long. But he did it by rushing through everything, and not really letting scenes and moments breathe.
Andrew Scott's is the best TED talk I've ever heard
😂👍
I'm starting to see why this speech can be so damn hard to perform well.
Andrew’s performance is truly brilliant. He understands the concept that an actor is not simply a voice, not even when performing Shakespeare. Simply standing on stage and trusting that Shakespeare’s words will get the message across is laziness, if not a mistake on the actor. There’s a reason so many companies will butcher the plays by cutting them: audiences will only listen for so long, the same way one will read a book in sections with breaks in between. His belief that Shakespeare needs to be exciting and engaging carries his performance in this direction.
It serves the delivery rather than distract from it. Watch his hand on “we end the heartache-.” Even while envisioning the peace of death, he has the pain of life nagging at him, inescapable as it were.
Honest choices that serve the play.
I entirely disagree. Hamlet was not written like modern play today. It is in iambic pentameter with rhyming couplets. Yes to rhyme in the dialect of the time. Shakespeare painstakingly wrote it that way. No you don't have to sing the words like Burbage but it is pure hubris to read and act it like a soap commercial.
@@MezzoMamma1 It’s not modern at all, you’re right. But there is a trend in classical theatre of the audiences already knowing the message that’s being told to them, most patrons at a performance of Shakespeare are already fans of Shakespeare. There are no stakes, no greater good in the reason for the performance. The same way that escapism contributes to the commercialization of Broadway musicals, actors will give dead performances for the sake of avoiding the wrath of Shakespeare elitists.
He makes choices in order to serve the play rather than leave it drifting on iambic pentameter.
@@MezzoMamma1 Totally concur. It's painful. Like he's reading a shopping list. Hurts my ears/eyes/heart. Truly awful
Well i have to say the Keneth and David are my favorite Hamlets i saw david in Dr Who and now as Hamlet i feel every emotion he feels
They're all good interpretation but for some reason Tennant's performance is not just visually, mentally and phonetically felt but even soulfully and that it's almost taken you in Hamlet's innards... it's almost voyeuristic but like a whisper that makes you wanna lean in for more
Ranked:
David Tennant!!!
Andrew Scott
Kenneth Branagh
Tom Hiddleston
First time I've seen David Tennant's version. Absolutely love it! Never heard of Andrew Scott, but he's pretty awesome as well. And though I am a fan of the other two... I like the clarity of comprehension I get from Tennant and Scott.
Kenneth Branagh just sounded almost the exact same way he did when playing Henry V, though. Not too impressed.
David Tennant had the weariness so exact and the thought-pattern with pauses for consideration and breaths drawn - gasped - for feelings, so exquisitely within character. Well done indeed.
The way Andrew Scott portrayed Hamlet as mentally imbalanced was so good! A completely new look, although the problem is that while Hamlet does seem insane at certain parts of the play, other parts reveal that he is more pretending than otherwise.
Too bad we couldn't actually SEE Hiddleston act it. I think he would have done better if in the context of the play, whereas his performance here does sound more like reading. It really is a pity.
When Shakespeare is done right, it isn't difficult to understand at all.
Andrew Scott absolutely nails this like no other! Unbelievable performance... 👏👏👏
Andrew Scott WOW 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Andrew Scotts version: WAUW!!
They are all great actors.
Andrew Scott. Definitely.
Very difficult to make these great but well used lines seem fresh and natural..Scott does just that!
Andrew Scott’s performance is beyond masterful 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Yes! He injects an unique tone of mockery into the debate. The hand gesture becomes a distraction.
Here I am a human playing about with the idea of dying when its all an idle notion. Like most I'll be sticking around! out of cowardice or doubts, whatever the excuse. The debate itself is foolishness?
This is AWESOME!!! Thx for another beautiful video 💜💜💜
Andrew Scott is a truly brilliant actor. The end.
So interesting to see the different interpretations. No one tops TH, but Branagh and Tennant are damn close seconds.
Funny, I found Andrew the most convincing. He sounds more natural, as if he were really pondering the question, not just reading the lines. Sounds more human.
Кейт Арчер I watched it again and found something interesting. If I only listen to it, I hear what you mean. But, watching it I found his hand movements and mannerisms a little wooden and stiff, so the whole picture seemed a little off-putting to me.
@@katearcher8514 I can't say I like it but I respect his take, Hamlet is a guy who thinks deeply about things. It doesn't break his character.
Andrew Scott's version is wonderful.
The guy after Tennant, magnificent. Different.
This is just my interpretation of the text, but I feel like “THAT” in “THAT is the question” should be emphasized, as if he’s having this realization of what the real question is. He’s considered all these other questions but it has dawned on him what the real question is, and once the question has been said, he’s crucially pointing out the former statement as having some meaning relative to all other questions.
To be or not to be…Now THAT, guys, THAT’s the question. There’s a lot of questions out there, but I’ve finally realized. To be or not to be! THAT’s the question.
Agree completely. Its at least ONE of the questions. Though "Who/what am I?" is arguably the more central question
@@user-io6eq9gt6w true, though not from hamlet's perspective. any of his intelligent self inquiry serves the purpose of distracting him from the task of murdering his uncle, not to seek any higher understanding of anything.
for example, he doesn't even spend much time pondering the existence of ghosts all that much and the implications that fact. also, when given the opportunity to kill his uncle, he takes for granted the fact that a repentant soul goes to heaven, only giving this a thought when it's convenient to get out of doing the killing. it would have been clever of him to, for example, further spy on his uncle or set a trap in order to kill him when knowing for sure he would go to hell, but he doesn't because he's psyching himself out of going through with the kill.
"to be or not to be", is the logical cul-de-sac for his existential distractions. he doesn't seek an answer or further inquiry, he's just staring into the void.
Started out with the idea of ranking these and then gave up. So I will say Hiddleston is the one who honors the poetry, because let's face it, it is written in meter. I love me some Doctor Who, so David comes into my heart. Those eyes! Andrew just lays it out there so I get it, living it in real time. Kenny's the most believable as a Prince. Cuz Prince Hamlet.
English is not my native language, Tennants version was the first one I saw the original english version, just knew the translated versions before. It`s the only version you don`t need to understand every word to get the meaning of it. But I would love to know how he stage version was, that`s why i don`t like theater very much: The actors have to talk louder as you would it normally do, so you can´t perform so intimate on a stage.
Andrew Scott is the goat
Very beautiful voice and most fascination, Tom Hiddleston is my favorit 🎧❤
The best voice is Tom Hiddleston's, but the best, most intense version ever is by Laurence Olivier, unfortunately not included here
I like all of these of course. I must say though, Tom Hiddleston's performance is quite static, would like to have seen more gesture and changes in facial expression throughout his version. It might just be very subtle movement which I'm not picking up on, no hate to the guy. Barely even seems to move his lips.
Uhhh it's a still image of him while he speaks....
@@sciencemama6801 congratulations! you got the joke :D
Whoosh.
LOL!!
And they have put the wrong photo. That is 'Alas, poor Yorick' when Hamlet is holding the skull
it is so much fun how the comment section either says that andrew scott is a genius or a pure crap
They all do a great job with it. I remember Mel Gibson's version in the movie. Would like to see that again.
Los amo a todos...Scott ...wow...lo ame...lo hizo "entendible" no se como decirlo...
Not included here (don't know if it was ever filmed) but Jonathan Pryce's Hamlet was the best I've ever seen onstage.
I'll take Olivier's, which they left out. Next, Branagh's. But must admit I was mesmerized by Andrew Scott's. Love it.
Not saying Olivier is bad, because he isn't, but if you still take Olivier as a reference, you don't know anything about Hamlet performance history.
I saw Scott and Tennant's performances live. Scott was really disappointing. Tennant was amazing. Branagh's is a little arch. I can see what Scott is going for. Ralph Fiennes did in with his Hamlet. He's trying to show it coming together as thoughts as opposed to a speech being delivered by an actor but it doesn't quite work. Fiennes sped through it as stream of consciousness. Plus Scott takes out all the poetry and rhythm. I'd love to see a version of this with other Hamlets on it. Hiddleston's is just flat. I remember Benedict Cumberbatch's being pretty good. But live Tennant's is the best I've seen.
good analysis
Shakespeare! William.
Scott tended to murder the verse, and it was a bit gimmicky, but it's really hard to do because everybody is expecting it. It's like he was trying too hard to be original. Branagh was understated and introspective, but there were some lovely lilts and emphases. Hiddlestone was fine. Tennant I like more the more I see it. He took the "weary" and made a whole speech of it, but Patrick Stewart stole that version. The best Hamlet I ever saw was Derek Jacobi. He kept the verse, and really made you think about what he was saying. And then, there was Mark Rylance and the peerless Simon Russell Beale.
Too bad we didn’t have Ralph Fiennes’ Hamlet recorded, his was my favorite of all, even tops Laurence Olivier’s.
I've recited this on numerous occasions. The worst one for me was on a musical stage where a backup vocals was echoing my lines. I hadn't rehearsed with them ever so it took a lot of gravitas away from its sentiment.
Love Hiddleston's voice, but his rendition is read, not performed and predictable. Would love to hear and see him perform Hamlet, what this would do to the conduct of his voice, because it's not quite the same, it lackt something.
I liked Tennant's performance the most; Scott had great moments, but was trying to hard to do something else. Branagh was by no means bad, for me it was the bright light and production, I don't like this making-of
Was it bad?
@@mishan3150 who do you mean? Hiddleston? If you mean him, my answer is no, I don't think it was bad, none of them were. His was read though and in a way like many others did before. It just seem to lack something - - I don't know, real emotion? The danger of ones voice breaking, when agitated. The focus seemed to be the sound of his voice and it was indeed a recording. Like a great singer, who sung an old song technicaly perfect, hitting all the right notes.
@@alexpond648 yeah Hiddleston
Because I went to his theatres
He is a pro!!!
@@alexpond648 I get it
The still small whisper. On outer' fridge, of vague' conscious. Always' pushing, pulling.. It will not' be found, in earth's tremors, Nor the storm. Or even' on the wind, but' in all flesh. Making' thus, it's unworthy commands on recipient, and' to abided life.
Hello, Zsuzsanna,
Great video! I'm wondering if you'd mind me using your video in my online Shakespeare class. I'd like to show my students different interpretations of the same scene with your permission.
Hi Sonya, of course. Please feel free to use any of my videos for your class/educational purposes, I"m glad you found my channel. 😊
Zsuzsa
Being attractive doesn't preclude being intelligent
And Tom Hiddleston is both
💚
Tennant is the best
Okay but why does everyone ignore Mel Gibson's Hamlet I think it is so good 😭
I have begun to question whether Hamlet is really considering suicide as is generally assumed. Whether to take revenge on his father-in-law, whether he can trust his college friends, how to confront his mother, and his relationship with his girlfriend are mainly on his mind. 'Taking arms against a sea of troubles' seems more like taking bold and if necessary violent action against his antagonists and others (as indeed he does several times, though in an impulsive and erratic fashion). But he instantly realises that assassinating his stepfather/uncle would likely prove fatal, which leads his errant mind into an obsessive reflection on death and the human race in general. True he refers to 'making his quietus with a bare bodkin', but that is a throwaway remark, scornful in tone - a bodkin is a sort of knitting needle, a blunt tool, only a girl would use that to commit suicide he seems to say (a telling example of his misogyny). In conclusion he says we're all afraid of death, so none of us dares do anything risky - which is projection on a grand scale.
its been said hamlet is actually a discussion of whether to remain catholic...
It's part of what gives it so much flexibility in interpretation. Does he himself crave death? Or is he merely asking why so many put up with so much? Is he trying to talk himself up? Is he enlightened or disgusted by the idea that fear governs our decisions in such a way?
Branaugh's Hamlet seems almost smug in the speech, like he's realized that this one little thing is all that's holding him back from his play, meanwhile Tennant's seems to be sickened by the thought.
Bodkin in this instance is an archaic word meaning dagger. What we refer to as a bodkin in modern times is a blunt ended, large eyed needle used for drawing cord or elastic through a casing. No relation at all to a knitting needle, which are sharp and could reasonably be used to stab someone.
This is just my take on this speech. Maybe I'm missing something and I'm completely wrong.
For years I've wondered why Hamlet is apparently depressed at this point when he has a clear goal and has a plan to reveal Claudius's guilt through staging The Moustrap (though some productions, like the one with Tennant, shift this speech to before then). He also talks about "the undiscover'd country", which seems slightly strange to me given he's seen an actual ghost and has a good idea what the afterlife might look like.
Then I realised that Hamlet doesn't just happen to walk into this scene. He comes in because he's been specifically sent for by Claudius and Polonius so they can spy on him - "For we have closely sent for Hamlet hither," - so Hamlet is expecting to meet someone and has to continue his pretence of being mad - wearing his "antic disposition" - and does so through this speech.
In my opinion he's not REALLY suicidal; he's acting. He's pretending to be suicidal, which makes sense given performance is such a big theme in the play. It's only later, when he's no longer pretending to be mad, that he presents Horatio with a real answer to facing life: "Let be."
That doesn't mean the thoughts he's articulating here aren't genuine ideas or feelings in his mind. I simply think that Hamlet isn't really suicidal in the same way I don't think he's really mad.
For my money, Branagh's version comes closest to this but I also like Tennant's. Not keen on Scott personally because the rhythm is a big part of Shakespeare and he breaks it up too much for my taste. Hiddleston sounds flat like he doesn't understand what he's saying.
Yeah, Hiddleston sounds exactly like he's just reading it. Of course that section is undercut by the lack of video.
I think there might be both. Some of it could be performative for whoever might be listening. But I think it's also genuine.
This isn't the grief-stricken depression from the Act1 sc 2 soliloquy. "Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd his canon 'gainst self-slaughter!" There, he's in pain. There's no question, he wants to die, to end his own life.
Here, yes he has a plan, but it's flimsy. Hamlet is about to challenge the king with, if it even works, nothing more than the king's reaction to a play as evidence. And he's tired. He's asking himself if it's even worth it. Should he challenge "Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely... the law's delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of th'unworthy takes" - all of which are relevant to the king - or just stop being. But notice how he couches it in euphemism now. It's not "self-slaughter". It's "not to be". He's psyching himself up for the fight. Albeit in a very roundabout way.
And in that regard, I think Tennant and Scott both deliver the best performance. Scott's is the intellectual curiosity of someone who is just numb. He's tired of this all, and so he's analyzing the possibility of his own death with an almost detached air. Tennant has more of the visible grief that Hamlet carries. Where Branagh and Hiddleston both feel like they're just reading from a script.
Andrew Scott best!
Burton, Nicol Williamson and Innokentiy Smoktunovskiy 1960 Russian film GOAT.
I feel like Tom is only reading Hamlet, not acting it like the others are
Hi, yes, he was reading it for the Dragon School Book of Verse audio CD, it was not a 'stage performance' like the orhers.
Christopher Plummer missing in the conversation.
And Derek Jacobi. Even Mel Gibson. And I'll be "blasphemous" and say that watching Laurence Olivier's put me to sleep.
Of other Hamlets: Kevin Kline's Hamlet (for Joseph Papp, I believe) is wooden. I've only seen snippets of Ian McKellen doing Hamlet, so I reserve full judgement, but I wasn't wowed. Richard Chamberlain did a fairly good Hamlet for TV after he'd done it successfully on stage in London, but they really shortened the play to 90 minutes for TV.
Aaaand Benedict Cumberbatch's Hamlet is totally absorbing. But I hated the set design for that production.
Respectfully, where is B. Cumberbatch? The best!