What Films Adapt Hamlet By William Shakespeare Most Faithfully?

I get giddy talking about these because of the permutations they enable regarding the issue of fidelity in adaptations of Hamlet. If by most faithful you mean most faithful in terms of literal, textual fidelity then obviously the answer is Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of Hamlet from 1996. Branagh shot the entire text of the play (approximately 4 hours worth) and made sure to include all of the soliloquies and major speeches. As cinema it is theatrically oriented – he doesn’t cut any of the full speeches or subplots for that matter – and features sumptuous, filmic versions of the sets from the play. I actually watched this on a single rainy weekend and followed along with the text – it felt like I’d been given the chance to read a really big, wonderful book which then went and ran itself.

Of the interpretations in terms of spirit and tone, I would say that Grigori Kozintsev’s 1964 Soviet adaptation of Hamlet with Innokenty Smoktunovsky as Hamlet is fantastic. He certainly trimmed down a lot of scenes from the original text and in many cases re-arranged them, but what he did with the remaining scenes was absolutely wonderful in terms of shot and music (Scored by Shostakovich, of course). The film still manages to be bleak and epic in scope while retaining all of the moral ambiguity of the original. I first found clips for this online and they blew my mind so much that I went and found a subtitled copy of the whole film to watch. It’s one of those films that makes the whole world feel like it’s been made in order to bring the play to life.

The 1948 film version by Laurence Olivier is in many ways historically important and in some respects brilliant. Yet again and again scenes and passages are cut or reworked in such a way as to redefine the psychology of Hamlet and present it within a very specific, often surreal dream world of images and atmosphere. There is no doubt that this Hamlet is an excellent interpretation of Shakespeare’s play but as far as a literal reproduction is concerned it fails in many respects.

Policing the boundaries between an almost literal stage-to-screen transfer of the RSC production with David Tennant and a free interpretation of the play, film directors have to make a range of difficult choices in respect of fidelity. To try and help, I have selected a few films to provide examples of different approaches. For complete textual fidelity the four hour full text version by Kenneth Branagh (1996) is without equal. I read the play and watched the film on a rainy weekend: it was just like reading a very long, gorgeous book. Or even better.

Ultimately, the best Hamlet adaptation for you will depend on the type of fidelity you want. If you’re after pure textual fidelity, Branagh’s the best choice. Most poetic and atmospheric are the cinematic adaptations of Kozintsev. Olivier’s adaptation is historically influential as an interpretation, so if you want to see how Shakespeare’s been reimagined on film before, look to Olivier. Modern adaptations with relatively faithful language include Almereyda’s adaptation of Hamlet set in contemporary New York. For a stage to screen transfer with plenty of theatricalism, try the RSC/David Tennant filmed version of the play. I watch Branagh’s version of the play with a printed copy of the text and a pot of tea to hand – there’s nothing quite like hearing the lines of a play and then being able to read them, and, perhaps, argue over them with friends of yours who’ve also been reading the same scenes.

Read the play? Watch Kenneth Branagh’s feature length 1996 ‘Hamlet’. This is the only major feature that contains just about the entire play. You get to see Laertes and Fortinbras, and all Hamlet’s famous soliloquies, which were no doubt written with performances such as this in mind. I saw this after we read the play in class and it really brought home the full script of a beautiful play.

A more poetic adaptation in mood and imagery is the Hamlet made by Grigori Kozintsev in 1964. It is powerfully simple and generally stands to be as opposed to Laurence Olivier’s heavily-cut 1948 version of Hamlet which is deeply psychologically oriented. The newest adaptation (2000) by Michael Almereyda sets Hamlet in contemporary New York and stays surprisingly true to the original language. I’d recommend Branagh’s movie for those who want to read the play first, Kozintsev’s for those who want a very cinematic Hamlet, and Almereyda’s for those interested in a more modern interpretation of the play – each version retains a different kind of “faithfulness”.

By “most faithfully” what do you mean? If by most faithfully you mean absolutely and completely word for word then yes Branagh is your only choice. But if by most faithfully you mean most accurately recreated from Shakespeare’s Globe performance then we’re stumped as no one actually knows what that would look like. Much more promising are RSC and National Theatre stage productions adapted for film, such as those featuring David Tennant and Simon Russell Beale respectively. Then again by most faithfully maybe you simply mean most capable of conveying the tragic and philosophical shades to resonate with modern audiences. In that case the Kozintsev version is arguably the most faithful. You have to define your terms. And personally I think faithfulness is overrated. Give me a movie that gets me as same emotional response as the play would and that is the best adaptation of it.