Over the years, various scholarly interpretations of the Ghost in Hamlet were established. They lie between extremes: some consider the Ghost an evil spirit whose call for revenge should have been ignored , and others stick with the opposite opinion that the Ghost is truly the spirit of Hamlet’s father returned from purgatory because that is what the Ghost himself states.
Many Hamlet scholars argued for the one and the other side, and convincing arguments for both points of view exist. However, the actual question is not if the Ghost is good or evil, but what William Shakespeare aimed at with the integration of a character so difficult to capture. As Constanze Pleinen detected correctly in "Das Übernatürliche bei Shakespeare", the Ghost’s ambiguity explains the perseverative popularity of the play; if it could be definitely clarified that the Ghost is either a good or evil spirit, a lot of tension would be lost for the audience and reader.
To prove that this thesis is also applicable on film adaptations of Hamlet is the aim of this term paper. Therefore, I chose two screen adaptations of Hamlet and examined how the Ghost is represented in each of them. My thesis is that in neither adaptation the Ghost is clearly marked as good spirit or evil demon, but the ambiguity between those two options is maintained in both adaptations; the directors play with this equivocality to retain the tension of the audience.
In order to prove my thesis, at first the significance of the Ghost and its ambiguity in Hamlet will be explained. It will be shown that Shakespeare did not embed a Ghost in Hamlet to simply entertain the audience, but that the Ghost is a central character of the play. In the subsequent chapter I will take a close look at the Hamlet adaptations of Olivier and Branagh. Primarily, an overview of each film by itself will be provided, then the representation of the Ghost will be described and afterwards analysed with regard to the Ghost’s ambiguity. By linking my own observations to those of other literary scholars, I will hopefully be able to prove my thesis in the conclusion of this paper.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Significance of the Ghost and its Ambiguity in Hamlet
3. The Representation of the Ghost in Two Film Adaptations
3.1. Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet: A Classic
3.1.1. An ‘Essay in Hamlet?’
3.1.2. The Ghost as a Shadowy and Misty Figure
3.1.3. An Ambiguous Ghost Throughout the Film
3.2. Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet: a Full-Text Masterpiece
3.2.1. Hamlet as Bright and Opulent Winter Tale
3.2.2. Representing the Ghost as Moving Statue
3.2.3. A Changing Ghost – From Demon to Purified Monk
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Objectives and Core Topics
This paper examines how the ambiguous nature of the Ghost in William Shakespeare's Hamlet is translated and represented in the film adaptations of Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh, specifically focusing on whether the Ghost is portrayed as an evil demon or a benevolent spirit.
- Analysis of the Ghost's origin and purpose in Shakespearean drama.
- Evaluation of Laurence Olivier's 1948 Hamlet and his use of visual ambiguity.
- Investigation of Kenneth Branagh's 1996 Hamlet and the Ghost's transformation from demon to monk.
- Comparison of cinematic techniques used to retain narrative tension.
- Exploration of the role of the Ghost as a catalyst for the play's action.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1.2. The Ghost as a Shadowy and Misty Figure
Olivier’s film starts - as the play – with the small Ghost scene. The Ghost seems like a shadowy figure and is not clearly identifiable. As described in the play (1.1.200), the Ghost is fully armed, and his face is hidden by a visor. Gloomy music supports the Ghost appearance, and during the scene the Ghost is constantly covered in fog; overall, the scene creates a mysterious and depressing atmosphere. At the end of the scene, the cock crows, and the Ghost disappears.
In the 30th minute of the film, the grand entrance of the Ghost is initiated by a camera shot on the thunderous sea; fog and darkness contribute to the mysterious mood. The Ghost is heralded by drum beats supposed to represent heartbeats; additionally, the Ghost is accompanied by a breathing sound, and a confused camera angle which switches between in and out of focus recordings. As in the small Ghost scene, the Ghost appears as dark figure in the fog, and is only observable from afar. In the following narration scene the Ghost is viewable at close range for the first time, but still a visor is covering his face. The Ghost speaks with a muffled voice; actually, this is also Olivier’s voice recorded at a slower speed. When the Ghost tells about the murder, the camera zooms into Hamlet’s back of the head, and the audience gets to see the murder in a flashback. Afterwards, the camera zooms out of Hamlet’s head, and it becomes apparent that Hamlet’s eyes are closed: Thereby, the murder-flashback is clearly marked as dream or imagination of Hamlet. After the flashback, the Ghost’s visor is raised, and in the 37th minute of the film the Ghost’s face is visible for the first and single time: He looks like a demon with brightly shining, unnatural eyes. After the narration scene, Hamlet reaches out for the Ghost’s hand; but the Ghost disappears in the fog, and Hamlet passes out.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the challenge of representing the supernatural on film and establishes the central thesis regarding the Ghost's persistent ambiguity.
2. The Significance of the Ghost and its Ambiguity in Hamlet: Explores the scholarly discourse on the Ghost's role as a catalyst and the conflicting religious interpretations of its origin.
3. The Representation of the Ghost in Two Film Adaptations: Provides the comparative analysis of the Ghost's visual and narrative treatment in the films of Olivier and Branagh.
3.1. Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet: A Classic: Discusses Olivier's interpretation of his work as an 'Essay in Hamlet' and his focus on Freudian psychology.
3.1.1. An ‘Essay in Hamlet?’: Examines Olivier's directorial choices and his adaptation strategy for a classic cinematic version of the play.
3.1.2. The Ghost as a Shadowy and Misty Figure: Details the atmospheric and technical representation of the Ghost in Olivier's version.
3.1.3. An Ambiguous Ghost Throughout the Film: Analyzes how Olivier maintains tension through subtle visual cues and the deliberate ambiguity of the Ghost.
3.2. Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet: a Full-Text Masterpiece: Explores the scale, visual opulence, and full-text nature of Branagh's adaptation.
3.2.1. Hamlet as Bright and Opulent Winter Tale: Describes the visual shift in atmosphere and the use of flashbacks in Branagh's film.
3.2.2. Representing the Ghost as Moving Statue: Investigates the unique cinematic portrayal of the Ghost derived from a statue in Branagh's version.
3.2.3. A Changing Ghost – From Demon to Purified Monk: Discusses the significant character evolution of the Ghost in Branagh's interpretation.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes how both directors successfully utilize the Ghost's ambiguity to sustain narrative tension throughout their respective films.
5. Bibliography: Lists the primary sources and critical literature used for the analysis.
Keywords
Hamlet, Shakespeare, Ghost, Film Adaptation, Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, Ambiguity, Supernatural, Revenge, Cinema, Visual Representation, Spirit of Health, Goblin Damned, Narrative Tension, Flashback.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic work?
The paper focuses on the cinematic representation of the Ghost in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and how directors use the character's ambiguity to maintain audience tension.
Which film adaptations are compared?
The study compares the 1948 adaptation by Laurence Olivier and the 1996 adaptation by Kenneth Branagh.
What is the core research question?
The research asks how the directors represent the Ghost's ambiguous nature—whether as an evil demon or an honest spirit—and how these choices affect the film's atmosphere.
What methodology is applied in the research?
The paper uses a comparative film analysis approach, examining specific scenes where the Ghost appears and evaluating the interplay of visual elements, sound, and narrative structure.
What defines the main body of the paper?
The main body details the specific character design of the Ghost in both films, contrasting Olivier’s hazy, noir-inspired approach with Branagh’s flamboyant, changing Ghost.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Hamlet, Ghost, Film Adaptation, Ambiguity, Supernatural, and Narrative Tension.
How does Olivier’s depiction of the Ghost differ from the original play?
Olivier uses sound and camera work to emphasize the Ghost's intangible nature, often suggesting that the spirit might be a product of Hamlet's imagination.
What is significant about the "moving statue" concept in Branagh’s film?
It provides a physical origin for the Ghost, grounding the supernatural elements in the castle's history and setting the stage for the Ghost’s dramatic appearances.
Why does the Ghost undergo a transformation in Branagh's version?
The transformation from a demonic, aggressive figure to a suffering, monk-like figure is used to illustrate the duality of the Ghost's nature and deepen the mystery regarding his truthfulness.
Does the author conclude that the Ghost is definitively good or evil?
No, the author concludes that both directors intentionally leave the Ghost's nature ambiguous to ensure that the audience remains captivated by the tension of the play.
- Quote paper
- Larissa Fick (Author), 2014, "Spirit of Health" or "Goblin Damn’d"? The Representation of the Ghost’s Ambiguity in Two Hamlet Film Adaptations, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/293901
