The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.1153 Tuesday, 17 November 1998.
[1] From: Matthew Gretzinger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1998 09:56:36 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 9.1146 Re: Branagh
[2] From: A. D. Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1998 15:37:29 +0000
Subj: Branagh's Hamlet
[3] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1998 09:51:55 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 9.1146 Re: Branagh
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gretzinger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1998 09:56:36 -0500
Subject: 9.1146 Re: Branagh
Comment: RE: SHK 9.1146 Re: Branagh
> Robin Williams, Denzel Washington, and the boy who played Hero (whose
> name, unfortunately I cannot now recall) all turn in exemplary performances.
Wow, that was a boy playing Hero? Branagh IS a genius.
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: A. D. Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1998 15:37:29 +0000
Subject: Branagh's Hamlet
>> There was no reason to give himself the "How all occasions do
>> inform against me" speech at all, much less to turn it into a moment of
>> grandiose declamation, much less make it the crescendo of a grandiose
>> movie filmed with 70mm cameras.
>
>Except that he was trying to do the full script, and leaving out a major
>soliloquy doesn't exactly lend itself to a "full script".
Justin's response (to Sean Lawrence?) needs some amplification, I feel.
It's worth asking just what is meant by 'full script'. 'How all
occasions' appears in Q2 only. What Branagh has filmed is, of course, a
conflated _Hamlet_, which combines material from both Q2 and F. This, of
course, serves to problematise the claims for 'authenticity' on which
the movie is predicated. Oddly, for someone with a theatrical
background, Branagh ignores recent arguments about Q2 and F as two
distinctive visions of the play.
But, apart from all of that, the staging of the soliloquy is just plain
silly -- it presumably is there as something to hang the interval on.
Andrew
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1998 09:51:55 -0800
Subject: 9.1146 Re: Branagh
Comment: Re: SHK 9.1146 Re: Branagh
Somebody noted that:
> > Some time
> > in 1997 or early 98 they [Films for the Humanities] were asking around
> $100.00 for Branagh's Hamlet
> > and my local Target was selling it for $24.95.
To which Justin responds:
> To be fair in this latter case it is almost certain that they were
> advertising the film before it was available for individual purchase-it
> is fairly typical for a film to retail at a higher price, so as to
> attract bulk purchases from video rental chains before individuals are
> allowed to purchase the film.
Might it also be a function of copyrights? I believe that tapes for
public display are always more expensive than tapes for private viewing,
at least in this country.
Cheers,
Sean (in Canada)
