Hamlet: Mel Gibson or Kenneth Branagh? That is the question

By: Alberto González Carrascal

Hamlet, perhaps William Shakespeare´s most important play, has been adapted for the screen on various occasions, but perhaps the two most important ones are Franco Zeffirelli´s 1990 version, starring Mel Gibson, and Keneth Branagh´s 1996 version, starred by himself. Ever since this last version, the critics have unanimously declared that it is the best one up to this date, given the impressive directing techniques, the outstanding cast, and specially, due to Branagh´s outstanding performance as Hamlet. But, is this view correct? We would not want to contradict the experts, however, after watching both movies some aspects of them call our attention and make us differ with the established opinion…

When watching Branagh´s film, one thing is clear: it is a film done with passion. Branagh has always been one of the main modern Shakesperean actors, and when taking Shakespeare´s most influential play to the screen, he clearly wanted to make a difference. That is obvious when you watch this four-hour movie, which follows the original play almost line by line, with a cast which is full of some of the most important names in modern cinema (such as Kate Winslet, Julie Christie, Billy Cristal, amongst many others), and directing techniques that marvel the audience thanks to their originality and precision.   

However, what is the most important thing about this film? The title should help us answer this question: Hamlet. And who plays Hamlet? Kenneth Branagh. And this is where I differ with the critics. The whole weight of this four-hour spectacular production rests on Kenneth Branagh´s very shoulders, and I honestly don´t think he is up to the standards of the film. Although his directing technique is unquestionable, his performance is completely out of order. In a film supported with such an excellent cast, Branagh fails to deliver the audience what is expected of a Hamlet interpretation: credibility. Branagh overacts in every single scene, exaggerating his manners and speech up to an extent that is almost ridiculous, therefore destroying Hamlet´s image of the calm thinker, whose soliloquies are full of dramatic sadness and deeply-felt grief. Branagh believed so much that he was going to play a great role, that his confidence in himself is even visible onscreen; his exaggeration is, I would dare to say, a direct result of his ego. Some could say: “but this is what great theatre actors do!”, and they would be correct. However, this is not a play acted out in a theatre stage, but a film with a professional cast, all of which manage to provide a credible performance in a calm, cinematic way. Exaggeration and overacting are good for theatre, but not for when you adapt a theatre play to screen. And it is even much less appropriate if the rest of the cast acts exactly as they would do in any normal movie, and Branagh stands out with his unreal performance. Therefore, I would say that this conception that Branagh does a wonderful performance is certainly inappropriate when you take into consideration all of the mentioned aspects.

So, what of the Zeffirelli version? Zeffirelli is supposed to be a great filmmaker, and yet, his version of Hamlet fails to provide the audience with any great camera techniques, or any great shots for posterity, like the Keneth Branagh version does. However, there is one great aspect which fixes the film and saves it from falling into oblivion: Mel Gibson. His performance as Hamlet is, for a person who has read the book and watched several versions of the play, the closest one to what Shakespeare seemed to have in mind. Mel Gibson puts all of his talents as a dramatic star into practice and surprises the audience with an outstanding performance, in which the audience can feel Hamlet´s suffering and mental exhaustion, but all of that through extremely subtle and carefully studied acting techniques. Mel Gibson gives cinema audiences exactly what they shold see: a cinematic character. His performance as Hamlet is exactly as natural as any other character in any other of his movies, with the added value of being a much deeper character, and therefore offering much more possibilities for Gibson as an actor. In scenes of sorrow, Gibson has always shown an innate talent to show grief (it is extremely easy for him to convincingly cry onscreen) that he can transmit to his audience, and he certainly exploits all of these capabilities in Hamlet, and complements them with all his violent physical strenght in which he has become a specialist all throughout his carreer. To sum everything up, he offers a supreme performance, which is certainly the best thing about a movie that, in other aspects, is completely expendable.

Therefore, after this brief analysis, it can be be partly seen that maybe the critic was´nt so right about praising Kenneth Branagh as the perfect Hamlet, and I think that even Branagh knew that Gibson did an oustanding performance which would be hard to imitate (and failed to do), when he himself said that “the best thing about Zeffirelli´s Hamlet was Mel Gibson´s performance”.