For a number of people in the United Kingdom, their first encounters with the Americans and their culture came during and following the Second World War, which ended in 1945. Britain’s growing relationship with the United States of America, cohesive throughout the War and the ensuing Berlin airlift crisis, led to an increased military presence of American soldiers in the UK and, as a result, an increased exposure to their way of life for residents of the UK who may have only seen and read about the Americans through televisions and newspapers. Inevitably, there were a myriad various reactions to the enigmatic presence of these ‘outsiders’. During this period in time, there were several main, contrasting perceptions of America and its global position of power and wealth, which arguably exist to this day to a degree. One stance was a negative position of jealousy and envy, the other is said to “delight in the liberational potential of American culture”.
It can be argued that the people of Britain were taking a progressively critical attitude towards the Americans as the 1940s came to an end. Although this could have been moulded by their own personal experiences with the Americans and the soldiers stationed in the UK during the war, it is likely that these opinions were, at least in part, formed by the persuasive media depictions of the USA which began to intensify as the 1950s brought a new wave of “Americanisation”; the pernicious influence of American popular culture inflicted by a society lacking the most basic cultural credibility on a Britain previously rich in traditional values. The media backlash against this American cultural invasion continued as it became clear that not only were American “traditions” beginning to appear in the UK, but that the British were actually embracing them.
The more educated and cultured British attempted to act as the moral guardians of the UK with those in a position to do so ensuring that the American influence was kept as controlled as possible. This disdain towards American media had long been prevalent in the United Kingdom, dating back to the days of the much-ridiculed ‘yellow press’ sensationalist newspapers at the end of the 19th century. Meanwhile, American films and television shows were garnering favourable responses from the less culturally demanding of British people, principally the youth element. Despite attempts to hold back new radical and revolutionary styles of music, the likes of Elvis Presley began to filter through the censorship, with much success, to the chagrin of believers in music with legitimate historical credibility. The British establishment were fighting a losing battle. “Americanisation” was an appealing and refreshing change to the reserved popular culture of Britain for those who felt a need for something a little more revolutionary than the carefully controlled British media.
It wasn’t only popular culture such as music and television shows that were imported from America. The whole concept of television as a forum of entertainment and mindless amusement was developed and aggressively expanded on in America during the 1940s and this led to an increased demand for a similar style of media throughout Europe during the 1950s. However, the television didn’t manage to eclipse the success of the cinema, despite posing a large threat. Cinema remained probably the most popular form of entertainment throughout the world, and the Americans dominated in virtually every aspect, a virtual monopoly which arguably remains to this day. Studies in the early 1990s depicted a Britain in which 90 per cent of all box office takings in the UK were for American films and, in 1994, nine out of the ten top grossing films of the year were American, despite the many and often severe cultural differences between the two countries. America is often viewed as a country with no real refinements, no finesse. A country with no historical culture and an alarming lack of scruples and behavioural protocol, with nothing to offer of a higher moral value than the likes of ‘trailer-park-trash’ shows such as “Jerry Springer”, a show in which Americans tend to reveal their outrageous and excessive exploits in front of a live audience. With shows tending to focus on sexual depravities, cheating lovers and various other “taboo” topics, it is clear where the impressions of America as a country with no moral boundaries emerged from. However, this is just a small aspect of a large and extremely diverse country. It is, nevertheless, often picked on as one of the “examples” of American culture and its potentially devastating effect on the preserved and time-honoured traditions in Britain.
It is this blinkered view of America that has been played on for decades by critics who argue that the very moral fibre of Britain is at risk as a result of an invasion by decadent American principles. An early example of this line of thinking would be the reaction of Britain’s most popular source of media at the time, the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC deliberately ignored American innovations such as rock ‘n’ roll music (often berated as one of the most negative influences by the likes of Richard Hoggart) and rhythm and blues. Research even indicates that the BBC laid down detailed guidelines as to how much American material should be presented and in what context. This was obviously an attempt to manipulate and control the tastes of the general viewing public, designed to off-put the “damaging effects” of Americanisation. It could be argued as to whether this policy protected the interests of the British public or simply the personal tastes of the upper BBC hierarchy, but it was vigorously employed throughout the 1950s.
The backlash against the Americanisation of Britain was not restricted to television. Newspapers and magazines also played an active role in the undermining of the worth of American cultures. One such newspaper was the Picture Post, in which writer Edward Hulton suggested the Americans were responsible for producing a generation of mindless, uninspired factory workers with no intellectual aspirations, who would rather read comic strips than a classical novel or anything of real substance, and moreover gave the impression of a crime-ridden Britain, caused by the US inflicted images of youth. Studies by Geoffrey Pearson in the 1980s seemed to corroborate these fears to a degree, looking in hindsight at the causes of lost morality in the United Kingdom. Pearson claims that “Popular entertainments of all kinds have been blamed for dragging down public morals in a gathering pattern of accusation… the first flickering danger signs from the silent movies… Hollywood picture palaces… and then television viewing… Each, in its own time, has been accused of encouraging a moral debauch”.
It is interesting that Geoffrey Pearson echoes what was being declared about the influence of America back in the 1950s, despite his research coming over three decades later. He suggests that declines in public morale and “imitative crime” can be traced back to the early days of cinema and TV, and their subsequent growth and impact through the second half of the twentieth century. This finding certainly adds some weight to the original fears of the affects American culture could perpetrate, although it is not definitive, as America is not the only country to have produced films from the 1940s onward and there is no evidence to suggest that British cinema and television had any less of an affect on the viewing public.
Whilst many critics of the time thought that the early signs of American culture becoming engrained in the British lifestyle were a negative and deplorable sign that high culture was dying a slow death in the hands of a generation too unrefined to appreciate the traditional and historical, there were also a number of critics who contrasted this view, welcoming the American qualities into the UK. However, the overwhelming fact remained that it was the ordinary people of Britain that were embracing many Americanisms and slowly these factors of US life became factors of British life too. American films, such as The Sound Of Music, became firm favourites in UK households. American stars of film, stage and music became as famous in Britain as in the USA. It could even be claimed that Britain has adopted so many “Americanisms” that as we stand in the early 21st century, Britain could almost be declared “honourary Americans”, or at least part-American, simply by definition of our cultural activities.
The United Kingdom is not alone however; during the last few decades, “Americanisation” has swept the world in a global phenomenon which has left US-based brand names such as McDonald’s, Budweiser, Nike, Disney and Coca-Cola and their corporate logos as the most recognised labels in the world. The British, once jealous and threatened by the “arrogant” Americans, now found the American translation of the English language become more globally recognised than the original language itself. As culture was “infected” by Americans, so too was the political and business side of the UK which became increasingly “Americanised” as the Brits took a more US-style approach to their jobs, inspired by films depicting the corporate side of America, such as Wall Street.
The early 21st century finds the global cultural influence of America seemingly on a slow downswing. This decline could be attributed to many factors, none of which could be definitively proven. Perhaps people are tiring of the influences of another country and want to reinvest in the rich histories and cultures of their own countries. Maybe there are simply no further developments to be made by embracing the American way of life; is Britain any less American than America itself these days? Another factor could simply be that America no longer represents the same image as it did when it began to influence the UK back in the 1950s. Its reputation severely damaged by political fiascos such as Bill Clinton’s sex scandals (which could have come directly from an episode of “Jerry Springer” in itself) and a declining ability to offer any assistance or influence to other countries could have led to a weakened perception of America as a whole, and therefore its culture.
Also, the USA has never quite managed to shake off its notorious reputation for sleaze and stupidity, despite the only evidence being hearsay and a small minority of US citizens. However, to suggest that US culture has but a small presence in the UK would be extremely misleading. Most towns and cities feature at least one McDonald’s restaurant, the most famous fashion brands are American based and some weeks there are more American television shows broadcast on British TV than home-made shows. Modern impressions of America are also quite different now. The younger generations were brought up on a diet of “America”, and unlike the older generations, there is nothing “alien” about the way of life. In conclusion, then, it is apparent that despite all attempts to censor and protect the British from American cultural influence, today’s Britain would be a startlingly different landscape from the “Americanised” Britain we live in today, a country whose mass media is largely owned and run by American-based companies, giving America more influence over the minds and opinions of the British public than ever.
Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Is Hamlet relevant to a modern day audience?
As people in the twenty-first century generally don't believe in ghosts and don't consider revenge a duty, why is a play like Hamlet still of interest to film and theatre audiences?
As William Shakespeare began writing Hamlet in 1598 - at the end of the 16th century - the play which would go on to become one of his most famous pieces of work was geared towards an audience of “churls”, “groundlings” and the less-educated members of theatre-going society, just as equally as the more educated and affluent audience members. Theatre being a relatively affordable and popular form of entertainment for the less wealthy individuals, Shakespeare would cater as much to their tastes as he would to the ‘higher society’ who would attend his plays. A fellow playwright, Ben Johnson, noted the diversity of the audiences in his verses to Fletcher's The Faithful Shepherdess, in which he refers to them as “the wise and many headed bench that sits upon the life and death of plays” and cites “gamester, captain, knight, knight's man, lady or pucelle, that wears mask or fan, velvet or taffeta cap, rank'd in the dark with the shop's foreman, or some such brave spark that may judge for his sixpence” as the various components of an audience.
Therefore it is not uncommon to find characters and situations in Shakespeare’s plays which may appeal more to the less-educated and “naïve” in attendance. Such undemanding elements could include clowns, lewd characters and, some may argue, ghosts. It is acceptable to believe that some of Hamlet’s audience, possibly even a majority, would have believed in the existence of ghosts to a degree. Fiercely religious, the audience’s fear of God and the supernatural would certainly lead them to accept that the more seemingly-absurd elements of Hamlet to us were deemed more than plausible when the play was originally performed in the early 17th century. However, as more contemporary productions of Hamlet are performed to today’s modern audiences, the question has to be raised as to what interest the audience can find in a tale fuelled by stories of ghosts and one man’s quest for revenge: themes which today’s spectators are unlikely to relate to. To simplify Hamlet as a tale of revenge and ghosts would be doing a great injustice to the play as a whole, and it can even be argued to some degree that “ghosts” and “revenge” in their traditional sense have no bearing on the tale of Hamlet at all, making the play as effective and engrossing today as it would have been to an audience during the early 17th century, even when applying today’s mentalities to the play.
One argument that can be applied to support claims that modern audiences cannot relate to a performance of Hamlet due to its outdated notions is the theme of “revenge” throughout the play. Hamlet is often seen as a “vengeful hero” or “revenger”, and the general feeling is that the concept of “revenge” as a duty is now not only outdated but antediluvian. However, Hamlet’s structure and story allow for different interpretations of Hamlet’s actions and his intentions, one of which arguably proves far more acceptable to any modern audience who require the need to be able to empathise with the tragic hero. It can be said that events simply conspire against Hamlet and that he is simply an opportunist in the action. This idea of Hamlet as responsive rather than initiating can be supported throughout the text. It is easy to derive from Hamlet’s demeanour and words in Act I Scene II (“A little more than kin, and less than kind”) that he is resentful and, therefore, vengeful towards his uncle, the King. This is further corroborated in Hamlet’s soliloquy, in which he contrasts the King with his father (“My father’s brother: but no more like my father, Than I to Hercules”) and describes how the King’s marriage to his mother breaks his heart.
However, as close attention is paid to the circumstances surrounding the events that follow, the line becomes quite blurred when deciding whether Hamlet acted maliciously out of blind vengeance or whether he was simply tempted up that path by coincidence and occurrence. When you consider that he was following the instructions of his father’s “ghost” it becomes even more blurred. It was the ghost which created the fire inside Hamlet, the desire for revenge but also the need for revenge as a duty, to his “murdered” father. The ghost, however, has been the subject of much debate amongst critics and readers of Hamlet, with the controversy surrounding whether the ghost is “real” as a physical element of the play, or whether it exists simply in the mind of Hamlet. The play opens with Horatio and various watchmen alarmed that they have seen a ghostly presence, although we don’t know for sure that they have actually seen the purported ghost of the former King. This could indicate that what they saw wasn’t actually a ghost, and further evidence to suggest this could be found in the scene in which Hamlet sees the ghost but Gertrude cannot see him (Act III, Scene IV).
Some critics, such as Jan Pick, argue that the appearance of the ghost as an actual element of the play is simply to encourage the audience to accept Hamlet as a rational human being rather than an insane character; the inclusion of the ghost as somebody the audience (if not the other characters) can see lends an air of authenticity to the ghost scenes, authenticity which can only exist to a modern audience in the assumption that Hamlet actually is insane, and imagining the ghost. Still, this scenario leads the viewer down a different but equally enthralling path which (again, assuming the ghost is a figment of Hamlet’s imagination) can be loosely accepted as a “realistic” plot element and therefore accepted by a modern audience.
The acceptance of the ghost therefore leads to an acceptance of the “revenge” theme in its traditional sense but also from a rational point of view. Whilst today’s viewer wouldn’t appreciate the concept of “revengeful duty”, we no longer believe Hamlet to be a rational man as a result of the ghost, and we therefore have an image of a man being ruled more by his personal, mental “demons” than by age-old tradition. He is also described by one critic as suffering from Freud’s Oedipus complex, in that Hamlet is “heavily aggravated by the absence of his father and excessive closeness of his mother, and this accounts for the refocusing of his patricidal wish onto Claudius, and shows how his need for revenge is internal.”
Hamlet's needs are deep and complex, his motives more unconscious than they appear. This lends a new theme to the play for a modern interpretation, which sees Hamlet as a man struggling with his own mind, rather than as a vengeful loyal son. This interpretation is ultimately open to each individual reader/viewer, but to spectators brought up on modern values and education, this element of the plot could prove of more interest than it’s original intention, if you delve deeper than a tale of ghosts and revenge and find a man struggling to maintain his sanity in the wake of his father’s apparent murder. It is only one interpretation, but Hamlet as a psychological play would leave more leeway for audience engagement and sympathy in the 21st century than Hamlet as a bloody and murderous tale of ghosts and vengeance. Other interpretations would declare Hamlet to be as sane as any of the other characters and simply consumed with hatred and revenge, so it is this open-to-interpretation nature of the play which makes it such a universally popular play to both study and watch.
Even for today’s modern audiences, Hamlet remains a shocking and graphic play. Of great historical importance (Hamlet is often cited as the most famous English play ever written) and with themes still considered controversial in the 21st century, there is no doubting that Hamlet is still of huge educational and cultural interest in this modern era. This is reflected in the successful transfers of the play onto modern stages, and into films and television. The fact that people still want to watch Shakespeare’s most famous play in the modern media is testament to the longevity of the play and its principle themes, and also to its lasting popularity. Bearing in mind that a lot of these adaptations stick quite closely to the recognised ‘official’ scripts, this shows that Hamlet transcends a play of fantastical scenarios and has entered the public consciousness as a piece of classic and enduring literature, fantasy or no fantasy. One of the most famous and successful film adaptations of Hamlet is that of Kenneth Branagh, whose portrayal of Hamlet shows “a naturally positive and sweet-natured fellow who feigns madness, rather than a tormented soul who is already half loony before he sees the ghost of his murdered father.” It can be said, then, that Branagh has managed to both capture the original premise of the tale, and the audience’s interest without compromising. So, does this prove that modern day audiences (Branagh’s movie was released in 1996) are more willing to accept the more outlandish ideas of Hamlet than previously believed, or simply that audiences are able to suspend their disbelief out of interest in other themes and aspects explored in Hamlet? The ghosts are depicted as real in Branagh’s film, as is the cold vengeful nature of Prince Hamlet, yet it was a huge critical success. One critical analysis of the play could explain why:
“This version of Hamlet has one thing that made me love it: originality. Well, the story may not be original but many of the elements are, including the visual style. Some say that Romeo + Juliet had visual style, and it did, but Hamlet has a much more appealing, and more appropriate look. One of the many gorgeous scenes takes place after the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude. The reception, taking place in the social hall, is amazingly colorful and energetic.”
Basically, in today’s “leisure landscape” anything is acceptable in the realms of entertainment, assuming that it is entertaining. An audience is as willing to accept a tale of apparitions and retribution now as it was in the days Hamlet was written, only with a different outlook to the play. The more ‘informed’ modern audience may take the stories of the ghost as another mindless yet entertaining aspect of a “show”, whereas Shakespeare’s audience would most likely have accepted the ghost sightings as a very real element of the plot, without really questioning the likelihood of such an occurrence. Similarly, their own instilled beliefs of pride and dignity would lead them to accept the revenge aspect, whereas their more level-headed theatre-going counterparts of the modern age would not expect this sort of thing in their everyday life.
From my perspective, however, Hamlet remains of interest to modern theatre and film viewers simply because it represents entertainment, which is limitless in an age of science fiction shows and space travel movies. Hamlet, in fact, could be one of the more believable stories to be found in Hollywood movies and on the stage, in the 21st century. Not forgetting that there are probably a number of potential viewers who do steadfastly believe in ghosts and the supernatural. There is also, of course, the historical and educational aspect of the play. There is still a demand for Hamlet, despite its antiquated devices, simply because of its legacy and reputation as one of the greatest and best-known plays ever written.
In exploring the many possible reasons for a modern-day, 21st century audience to take interest in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, I come to the conclusion that there are many ways to approach a modern-day viewing of the classic play and that the result is dependant on the individual watching. There will be some who cannot find any positive aspect of watching a performance of the play in the 21st century, feeling that they cannot possibly relate to such fantastical plots as ghosts and over-the-top pledges of revenge. However, it is my personal opinion that watching a performance of Hamlet is like watching a piece of history repeated before your eyes, if you look at it from the perspective of a “groundling” or anybody who would have been present at the Globe theatre or an early performance of the play. Sitting at home in your 21st century living room, it would be very hard to empathise with the characters and their situations. However, had you been present at the time, it would have tapped into your social conscience due to the conceptions of the time, and it is important to remember this, and to merit Hamlet for its contextual importance as well as from a modern outlook. In conclusion, then, I find it hard to believe that a modern day audience could not find some interest in watching a performance of Hamlet, be it from an historical or entertainment point of view.
As William Shakespeare began writing Hamlet in 1598 - at the end of the 16th century - the play which would go on to become one of his most famous pieces of work was geared towards an audience of “churls”, “groundlings” and the less-educated members of theatre-going society, just as equally as the more educated and affluent audience members. Theatre being a relatively affordable and popular form of entertainment for the less wealthy individuals, Shakespeare would cater as much to their tastes as he would to the ‘higher society’ who would attend his plays. A fellow playwright, Ben Johnson, noted the diversity of the audiences in his verses to Fletcher's The Faithful Shepherdess, in which he refers to them as “the wise and many headed bench that sits upon the life and death of plays” and cites “gamester, captain, knight, knight's man, lady or pucelle, that wears mask or fan, velvet or taffeta cap, rank'd in the dark with the shop's foreman, or some such brave spark that may judge for his sixpence” as the various components of an audience.
Therefore it is not uncommon to find characters and situations in Shakespeare’s plays which may appeal more to the less-educated and “naïve” in attendance. Such undemanding elements could include clowns, lewd characters and, some may argue, ghosts. It is acceptable to believe that some of Hamlet’s audience, possibly even a majority, would have believed in the existence of ghosts to a degree. Fiercely religious, the audience’s fear of God and the supernatural would certainly lead them to accept that the more seemingly-absurd elements of Hamlet to us were deemed more than plausible when the play was originally performed in the early 17th century. However, as more contemporary productions of Hamlet are performed to today’s modern audiences, the question has to be raised as to what interest the audience can find in a tale fuelled by stories of ghosts and one man’s quest for revenge: themes which today’s spectators are unlikely to relate to. To simplify Hamlet as a tale of revenge and ghosts would be doing a great injustice to the play as a whole, and it can even be argued to some degree that “ghosts” and “revenge” in their traditional sense have no bearing on the tale of Hamlet at all, making the play as effective and engrossing today as it would have been to an audience during the early 17th century, even when applying today’s mentalities to the play.
One argument that can be applied to support claims that modern audiences cannot relate to a performance of Hamlet due to its outdated notions is the theme of “revenge” throughout the play. Hamlet is often seen as a “vengeful hero” or “revenger”, and the general feeling is that the concept of “revenge” as a duty is now not only outdated but antediluvian. However, Hamlet’s structure and story allow for different interpretations of Hamlet’s actions and his intentions, one of which arguably proves far more acceptable to any modern audience who require the need to be able to empathise with the tragic hero. It can be said that events simply conspire against Hamlet and that he is simply an opportunist in the action. This idea of Hamlet as responsive rather than initiating can be supported throughout the text. It is easy to derive from Hamlet’s demeanour and words in Act I Scene II (“A little more than kin, and less than kind”) that he is resentful and, therefore, vengeful towards his uncle, the King. This is further corroborated in Hamlet’s soliloquy, in which he contrasts the King with his father (“My father’s brother: but no more like my father, Than I to Hercules”) and describes how the King’s marriage to his mother breaks his heart.
However, as close attention is paid to the circumstances surrounding the events that follow, the line becomes quite blurred when deciding whether Hamlet acted maliciously out of blind vengeance or whether he was simply tempted up that path by coincidence and occurrence. When you consider that he was following the instructions of his father’s “ghost” it becomes even more blurred. It was the ghost which created the fire inside Hamlet, the desire for revenge but also the need for revenge as a duty, to his “murdered” father. The ghost, however, has been the subject of much debate amongst critics and readers of Hamlet, with the controversy surrounding whether the ghost is “real” as a physical element of the play, or whether it exists simply in the mind of Hamlet. The play opens with Horatio and various watchmen alarmed that they have seen a ghostly presence, although we don’t know for sure that they have actually seen the purported ghost of the former King. This could indicate that what they saw wasn’t actually a ghost, and further evidence to suggest this could be found in the scene in which Hamlet sees the ghost but Gertrude cannot see him (Act III, Scene IV).
Some critics, such as Jan Pick, argue that the appearance of the ghost as an actual element of the play is simply to encourage the audience to accept Hamlet as a rational human being rather than an insane character; the inclusion of the ghost as somebody the audience (if not the other characters) can see lends an air of authenticity to the ghost scenes, authenticity which can only exist to a modern audience in the assumption that Hamlet actually is insane, and imagining the ghost. Still, this scenario leads the viewer down a different but equally enthralling path which (again, assuming the ghost is a figment of Hamlet’s imagination) can be loosely accepted as a “realistic” plot element and therefore accepted by a modern audience.
The acceptance of the ghost therefore leads to an acceptance of the “revenge” theme in its traditional sense but also from a rational point of view. Whilst today’s viewer wouldn’t appreciate the concept of “revengeful duty”, we no longer believe Hamlet to be a rational man as a result of the ghost, and we therefore have an image of a man being ruled more by his personal, mental “demons” than by age-old tradition. He is also described by one critic as suffering from Freud’s Oedipus complex, in that Hamlet is “heavily aggravated by the absence of his father and excessive closeness of his mother, and this accounts for the refocusing of his patricidal wish onto Claudius, and shows how his need for revenge is internal.”
Hamlet's needs are deep and complex, his motives more unconscious than they appear. This lends a new theme to the play for a modern interpretation, which sees Hamlet as a man struggling with his own mind, rather than as a vengeful loyal son. This interpretation is ultimately open to each individual reader/viewer, but to spectators brought up on modern values and education, this element of the plot could prove of more interest than it’s original intention, if you delve deeper than a tale of ghosts and revenge and find a man struggling to maintain his sanity in the wake of his father’s apparent murder. It is only one interpretation, but Hamlet as a psychological play would leave more leeway for audience engagement and sympathy in the 21st century than Hamlet as a bloody and murderous tale of ghosts and vengeance. Other interpretations would declare Hamlet to be as sane as any of the other characters and simply consumed with hatred and revenge, so it is this open-to-interpretation nature of the play which makes it such a universally popular play to both study and watch.
Even for today’s modern audiences, Hamlet remains a shocking and graphic play. Of great historical importance (Hamlet is often cited as the most famous English play ever written) and with themes still considered controversial in the 21st century, there is no doubting that Hamlet is still of huge educational and cultural interest in this modern era. This is reflected in the successful transfers of the play onto modern stages, and into films and television. The fact that people still want to watch Shakespeare’s most famous play in the modern media is testament to the longevity of the play and its principle themes, and also to its lasting popularity. Bearing in mind that a lot of these adaptations stick quite closely to the recognised ‘official’ scripts, this shows that Hamlet transcends a play of fantastical scenarios and has entered the public consciousness as a piece of classic and enduring literature, fantasy or no fantasy. One of the most famous and successful film adaptations of Hamlet is that of Kenneth Branagh, whose portrayal of Hamlet shows “a naturally positive and sweet-natured fellow who feigns madness, rather than a tormented soul who is already half loony before he sees the ghost of his murdered father.” It can be said, then, that Branagh has managed to both capture the original premise of the tale, and the audience’s interest without compromising. So, does this prove that modern day audiences (Branagh’s movie was released in 1996) are more willing to accept the more outlandish ideas of Hamlet than previously believed, or simply that audiences are able to suspend their disbelief out of interest in other themes and aspects explored in Hamlet? The ghosts are depicted as real in Branagh’s film, as is the cold vengeful nature of Prince Hamlet, yet it was a huge critical success. One critical analysis of the play could explain why:
“This version of Hamlet has one thing that made me love it: originality. Well, the story may not be original but many of the elements are, including the visual style. Some say that Romeo + Juliet had visual style, and it did, but Hamlet has a much more appealing, and more appropriate look. One of the many gorgeous scenes takes place after the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude. The reception, taking place in the social hall, is amazingly colorful and energetic.”
Basically, in today’s “leisure landscape” anything is acceptable in the realms of entertainment, assuming that it is entertaining. An audience is as willing to accept a tale of apparitions and retribution now as it was in the days Hamlet was written, only with a different outlook to the play. The more ‘informed’ modern audience may take the stories of the ghost as another mindless yet entertaining aspect of a “show”, whereas Shakespeare’s audience would most likely have accepted the ghost sightings as a very real element of the plot, without really questioning the likelihood of such an occurrence. Similarly, their own instilled beliefs of pride and dignity would lead them to accept the revenge aspect, whereas their more level-headed theatre-going counterparts of the modern age would not expect this sort of thing in their everyday life.
From my perspective, however, Hamlet remains of interest to modern theatre and film viewers simply because it represents entertainment, which is limitless in an age of science fiction shows and space travel movies. Hamlet, in fact, could be one of the more believable stories to be found in Hollywood movies and on the stage, in the 21st century. Not forgetting that there are probably a number of potential viewers who do steadfastly believe in ghosts and the supernatural. There is also, of course, the historical and educational aspect of the play. There is still a demand for Hamlet, despite its antiquated devices, simply because of its legacy and reputation as one of the greatest and best-known plays ever written.
In exploring the many possible reasons for a modern-day, 21st century audience to take interest in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, I come to the conclusion that there are many ways to approach a modern-day viewing of the classic play and that the result is dependant on the individual watching. There will be some who cannot find any positive aspect of watching a performance of the play in the 21st century, feeling that they cannot possibly relate to such fantastical plots as ghosts and over-the-top pledges of revenge. However, it is my personal opinion that watching a performance of Hamlet is like watching a piece of history repeated before your eyes, if you look at it from the perspective of a “groundling” or anybody who would have been present at the Globe theatre or an early performance of the play. Sitting at home in your 21st century living room, it would be very hard to empathise with the characters and their situations. However, had you been present at the time, it would have tapped into your social conscience due to the conceptions of the time, and it is important to remember this, and to merit Hamlet for its contextual importance as well as from a modern outlook. In conclusion, then, I find it hard to believe that a modern day audience could not find some interest in watching a performance of Hamlet, be it from an historical or entertainment point of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
