The following essay was my response to an assignment which involved comparing-- The Mousetrap--, the play-within-a-play, in Shakespeare's Hamlet, with a video montage of the same name in Michael Almereyda's 2000 adaptation of the play starring Ethan Hawke. I post it here as it seems relevant to the content of this blog and represents, by way of comparison, many of my feelings about its conception.
In Michael Almereyda’s
2000 film Hamlet, the director re-imagines Shakespeare’s play in the art
and commerce world of twenty-first century Manhattan. Characteristic with this
updating of the text, the stage-play’s play-within-a-play, The Mousetrap,
is re-imagined as a video montage. In film and play, both Hamlets
create a presentation from borrowed material. The film’s Hamlet, however,
creates a work which bears neither the burden of presenting itself as another
play entirely, nor must it bear the potential missteps associated with a live
non-recorded performance. As such, it is the Hamlet of the film which
seems to have more directorial control.
Both Hamlets create a work
from borrowed material. In the play, this material is borrowed mainly
from a single source, The Murder of Gonzago. It is fortunate that
this play so closely describes the murderous situation with which Hamlet is
determined to draw out his uncle. In this sense, Hamlet is playing the
part merely of curator. He goes further, however, in his control of the
play and adds lines. “You could for a need study the speech of some dozen lines
or sixteen lines, which I would set down and insert in’t, could you
not?”(2.2.537-539).
In the film, Hamlet
borrows from a number of sources for the video montage. Interestingly,
much like the play, where Hamlet borrows a well-known play from antiquity, in
the film Hamlet borrows mainly filmic images from film’s golden age through the
70’s, including what seem like sitcoms, PSAs, a few golden age epics, and even
pornography. As curator and editor, Hamlet has the power to
juxtapose these images in a variety of ways, using any or all of the editing
abilities afforded him by his computer editing suite. In this sense he
seems to be in greater control of the whole of the production.
Additionally, in the film,
Hamlet can edit to his heart’s content until he has what most closely resembles
his vision, and can then make a permanent copy of this production.
Lacking these technological advantages, Hamlet in the play must rely on a
one time production that either passes or fails. To this end, he goes to
great lengths to explain the tone in which he wants the dialogue to be read.
Speak the speech, I pray you, as i pronounced it to you,
trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it as many of our players do, I had
as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do no saw the air to much with
your hands, thus. But use all gently.(3.2.1-5)
This technological
advantage applies, also, to the integrity of the borrowed material. In
the play, the players can only be expected to remember so much, however, with
recorded media, the presentation is consistent every time. As such, the
curating of the borrowed materials is more exact in the film. Whatever
video Hamlet remembers and intends to use, it will be the exact same video he
saw the first time.
Both Mousetraps, however,
need to maintain a certain amount of opacity. That is, the play or video
is meant only to affect the King and Queen, yet it is important that others be
present to witness it. In choosing a known play, the Murder of
Gonzago can act as both idle entertainment for the many, and condemnation
for the few with more subtlety. However, in the the film, since the Mousetrap
video montage is more an original work, and is understood as such, the
potential for the greater audience to interpret Hamlet’s motives are increased.
By this measure, Hamlet sacrifices a degree of the production’s
opacity in exchange for greater control of the finished work.
In the play, Hamlet may
have, if he decided to, written his own play. As a prince, it isn’t hard
to imagine that he could have had the resources needed to pull of an original
production, or something more-his-own. This brings up the question as to
what extent each Hamlet considers himself artist or avenger. It would
seem the Hamlet in the film is more the artist and the Hamlet of the play the
avenger. However, in the film, Hamlet’s personal videos seem more like a
diary than a film, a more modern version of the oratory self-reflection of the
play’s Hamlet. Like in the play, it is his need for vengeance that
inspires him to create.
In this sense, directorial
control is only a secondary concern. The real joy of the creation doesn’t
lie in the self-expression, but in the revenge. However, it could be
argued that the play-within-a-play or the film-within-a-film could be
considered a sort of revenge in its self. And, it is this sort of
revenge Hamlet seems to be most capable of. “Must I like a whore unpack
my heart with words?,”(2.2.583) Hamlet asks himself. In Almereyda’s
adaptation, he unpacks his heart with images.
