hamlet ghost scene mel gibson

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Which Version Of The Hamlet Ghost Scene (Act 1 Scene 5)

Word count: 1413
Category: Hamlet

A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

In this essay I will compare three film versions of the ghost scene from Shakespeare’s play, ‘Hamlet’. They are; Mel Gibson version made in 1990, Kenneth Branagh’s version produced in 1996 and Ethan Hawke’s version from 2001. In my opinion the Mel Gibson version has the best interpretation of the ghost scene, because it is more original and believable than the same scene in the other two films. In this essay I will show why I prefer the Mel Gibson version, rather than the Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh versions.

The Mel Gibson film, the earliest of the three, from 1990, is filmed in the north of Denmark, which is where the play is actually set. It is in the medieval castle of Elsinore, which fits the period the play was originally set in. This is very effective as the castle buildings provide a dramatic setting and increases the tension of the film. The ghost scene is set in the castle battlements of Ellsinore and the dark night sky, along with the howling wind builds tension and suspense in the scene.

In my opinion this is very effective because it’s very traditional and fits in better with the way that Shakespeare had intended the scene to be perceived. In the Kenneth Branagh film the ghost scene is set in an orchard on the castle grounds, presumably where Hamlet’s father was murdered. It is a very detailed setting, there are lots of trees, which add to the atmosphere by making the characters appear enclosed and trapped.

It is also dark and gloomy which creates an intense atmosphere, but in my opinion these things make the ghost scene less believable and which makes the ghost seem less believable so consequently the scene is less effective. The Ethan Hawke film is slightly more recent and it tries to be more modern and contemporary, which is a different conception of the original play, and obviously unlike the way Shakespeare would have imagined the setting appearing when he wrote the play.

There are lots of modern things used as props such as the TV, that wouldn’t have been around when the play was written. Its set in a modern studio apartment with big glass windows and the setting creates a lack of atmosphere, which in turn means this version of the ghost scene doesn’t do the original play justice. The actors in the 1990 version starring Mel Gibson were very convincing. Mel Gibson played Hamlet with lots of emotion and expressed the fact that Hamlet was going crazy well. He used lots of facial expressions to convey passionate anger.

He speaks in various tones, sometimes loud, sometimes more quiet, which helps to create tension. He also makes gestures with his sword, which suggests his anger and spite towards his uncle Claudius. The actor who plays the ghost is also effective, as he tells Hamlet he was murdered by his brother, by not directly saying what he means. The ghost in the Mel Gibson film lacked make-up compared to the ghost in the Kenneth Branagh and Ethan Hawke though, which slightly let the scene down, but the ghost was meant to appear alive and as a normal person though.

Overall the acting was very believable. In the Kenneth Branagh version, from 1993, the actors seem to vary the pace of the scene, Kenneth Branagh like Mel Gibson, expresses anger well, with an effective delivery of lines from all the actors. The actor who plays the ghost uses facial expressions to add to the atmosphere. He appears with his eyes glazed over, and he looks white and pale, which is was very effective in making the ghost appear dead. The acting in the Ethan Hawke version of Hamlet is not as plausible as in the other two films.

The actors appear wooden, and there is a lack of emotion in the way both Hamlet and the Ghost speak. Overall the scene is less effective; there is no real atmosphere created by the actors and it is very tame. The costumes in the Mel Gibson film were very traditional and old fashioned which fitted in with the setting and the period the film was first set in. they were very dark which added to the mood of the scene. As in all the films the costume doesn’t really make the scene any more effective, they are just elements needed in the scene, which aren’t crucially important.

The make up of the ghost helps to make him look normal, not as a ghost or spirit, like in the other films. The costumes in the ghost scene of the Kenneth Branagh were also very traditional, much the same as the costumes in the Mel Gibson film, as they were both set in the same period. Hamlet’s father’s ghost wore lots of white make-up to make himself appear dead. This wasn’t very effective as it looked cheap and over the top. In my opinion the costumes and the make-up were over the top.

In the Ethan Hawke Hamlet scene the characters wore suits and the ghost was very unlike the ghosts from the other two films, which less effective and at first you did not realise he was the ghost of Hamlet’s father, which made the scene less effective and didn’t create such a strong atmosphere. The music in the Mel Gibson film started daunting and loud when Hamlet is running towards the ghost, and the music sets the pace of the lines from the two characters. There is low light and most of that comes from the moon, which is effective because it creates tension and suspense, and makes you wonder what will happen next.

The music along with the lighting create an atmosphere of tension, but seemed to make the scene into too much of a Hollywood blockbuster film, and in my opinion isn’t how a classic Shakespeare ghost scene would go. In the Kenneth Branagh version, there too, is also a lot of loud music, which is fast paced and sets the scene for when the ground shakes, and then breaks for the ghost appears. The music is orchestral which in any film adds to the tension. The lighting is quite bright, which ruins the atmosphere slightly my making it less dramatic.

The Ethan Hawke film is the weakest when it comes to the lighting and the music. The music is weak and doesn’t add to the atmosphere and the lighting is too dim. This is not very effective and spoils the scene. In the Mel Gibson film the atmosphere is built up in a number of ways. Hamlet is holding a sword, which suggests danger, because you, as the audience, don’t know what he’s going to do with it. Also the fast pace and then sudden change of the lines and music creates tension throughout the scene.

Tension is also built up by the way the characters deliver their lines. They say them quietly and in different tones, to keep the audience’s interest right through the scene. In the Kenneth Branagh film, tension is built up by making the ghost of Hamlet’s father appear from the shaking ground, and there is a good use of special effects to build up the atmosphere, which makes the audience wonder what will happen next. Scenes in the orchard building after also help to build up the tension as Hamlet realises what’s happened.

In the Ethan Hawke film, the latest of the three, from 2001, atmosphere and tension isn’t built up very well, if at all. The setting and characters vary so much from the original script that the scene isn’t as good as the other two. The lack of emotion fails to create any real tension and atmosphere in my opinion. After evaluating the three films, I stuck by my decision that the Mel Gibson version, from 1990, was a better production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, than the versions with Kenneth Branagh in (1996) and Ethan Hawke (2001).

I think this because it proved to be the more original film, and the other two films were weaker and not as good as the Mel Gibson version, when comparing different aspects of the films. The Mel Gibson film had a setting, which fitted in better with the one from the original play, the acting was more believable and the costumes and make up represented the characters emotions. The lighting wasn’t as good as that of the Kenneth Branagh version, but overall I believe it was the better film at creating atmosphere and tension and therefore it was more effective.

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

I had a professor in college who knew everything there was to know about " Romeo and Juliet ." Maybe he knew too much. One day in class he said he would give anything to be able to read it again for the first time. I feel the same way about "Hamlet." I know the play so well by now, have seen it in so many different styles and periods and modes of dress, that it’s like listening to a singer doing an old standard. You know the lyrics, so the only possible surprises come from style and phrasing.

The style of Franco Zeffirelli ’s "Hamlet," with Mel Gibson in the title role, is robust and physical and - don't take this the wrong way - upbeat. Gibson doesn't give us another Hamlet as Mope, a melancholy Dane lurking in shadows and bewailing his fate. We get the notion, indeed, that there was nothing fundamentally awry with Hamlet until everything went wrong in his life, until his father died and his mother married his uncle with unseemly haste. This is a prince who was healthy and happy and could have lived a long and active life, if things had turned out differently.

Part of that approach may come from Zeffirelli, whose famous film version of "Romeo and Juliet" also played on the youth and attractiveness of its characters, who were bursting with life and romance until tragedy separated them. The approach also may come from Gibson himself, the most good-humored of contemporary stars, whose personal style is to deflect seriousness with a joke, and who doesn't easily descend into self-pity and morose masochism. He gives us a Hamlet who does his best to carry on, until he is overwhelmed by the sheer weight of events.

Zeffirelli sets his film in a spectacular location - a castle on an outcropping of the stark coast in northern Scotland, perched on top of a rock nearly surrounded by the sea. There is mud here, and rain and mist, and the characters sometimes seemed dragged down by the sheer weight of their clothing. This is a substantial world of real physical presence, fleshed out by an unusual number of extras; we have the feeling that this throne rules over real subjects, instead of existing only in Shakespeare’s imagination.

Right at the outset, Zeffirelli and his collaborator on the shooting script, Christopher De Vore , take a liberty with "Hamlet" by shifting some dialogue and adding a few words to create a scene that does not exist in the original: The wake of Hamlet’s father, with Hamlet, Gertrude and Claudius confronting each other over the coffin.

In film terms, this scene makes the central problem of "Hamlet" perfectly clear, and dramatically strengthens everything that follows. It sets up not only Hamlet’s anguish, but the real attraction between his mother and his uncle, which is seen in this version to be at least as sexual as it is political.

The cast is what is always called "distinguished," which usually but not always means "British," includes at least three actors who have played Hamlet themselves: Alan Bates , as Claudius; Paul Scofield , as the ghost of Hamlet’s father, and Ian Holm , as Polonius. Holm is especially effective in the "to thine own self be true" speech, evoking memories of his great work as the track coach in " Chariots of Fire ," and I enjoyed Bates' strength of bluster and lust, as a man of action who will have what he desires and not bother himself with the sorts of questions that torture Hamlet.

The women of the play, Glenn Close , as Gertrude, and Helena Bonham-Carter , as Ophelia, are both well cast. Close in particular adds an element of true mothering that is sometimes absent from Gertrude. She loves her son and cares for him, and is not simply an unfaithful wife with a short memory. Indeed, there are subtle physical suggestions that she has loved her son too closely, too warmly, creating the buried incestuous feelings that are the real spring of Hamlet’s actions. Why has she remarried with such haste? Perhaps simply so the kingdom’s power vacuum will be filled; she seems a sensible sort, and indeed everyone in this version seems fairly normal, if only Hamlet could rid himself of his gnawing resentment and shameful desires long enough to see it.

Bonham-Carter is a small and darkly beautiful actress who is effective at seeming to respond to visions within herself. As Ophelia she has a most difficult role to play, because a character who has gone mad can have no further relationship with the other characters but must essentially become a soloist. All of her later scenes are with herself.

That leaves Hamlet and his best friend, Horatio ( Stephen Dillane ), as those who are not satisfied with the state of things in the kingdom, and Dillane, with his unforced natural acting, provides a good partner for Gibson. As everything leads to the final sword fight and all of its results, as Hamlet’s natural good cheer gradually weakens under the weight of his thoughts, the movie proceeds logically through its emotions. We never feel, as we do sometimes with other productions, that events happen arbitrarily.

Zeffirelli’s great contribution in "popularizing" the play has been to make it clear to the audience why events are unfolding as they are.

This "Hamlet" finally stands or falls on Mel Gibson’s performance, and I think it will surprise some viewers with its strength and appeal. He has not been overawed by Shakespeare, has not fallen into a trap of taking this role too solemnly and lugubriously. He has observed the young man of the earlier and less troubled scenes, and started his performance from there, instead of letting every nuance be a foreshadow of what is to come. It’s a strong, intelligent performance, filled with life, and it makes this into a surprisingly robust "Hamlet."

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Waiting for the Light to Change

Matt zoller seitz.

The Marvels

Christy lemire.

Onyx the Fortuitous and the Talisman of Souls

Sheila o'malley.

Dream Scenario

After Death

The Persian Version

Peyton robinson, film credits.

Hamlet (1991)

135 minutes

Mel Gibson as Hamlet

Alan Bates as Claudius

Glenn Close as Gertrude

Ian Holm as Polonius

Stephen Dillane as Horatio

Paul Scofield as The Ghost

Helena Bonham-Carter as Ophelia

Directed by

Franco Zeffirelli

Produced by

Dyson Lovell

Photographed by

David Watkin
Christopher De Vore
Ennio Morricone

From The Play by

William Shakespeare

Latest blog posts

Nathan Fielder, Emma Stone Want You to Suffer Through the Hysterical, Cringe-Inducing The Curse

Max's Rap Sh!t Returns for a Moody Second Season

Apple TV+'s The Buccaneers Shakes Up High Society

Comedy is No Joke: An Interview with Comedy Book Author Jesse David Fox

Rent or buy
Categories Categories
Getting Started

Hamlet (1990)

Cast and Crew

Other formats

980 global ratings

How are ratings calculated? Toggle Expand Toggle Expand

Amazon Newsletter
About Amazon
Accessibility
Sustainability
Press Center
Investor Relations
Amazon Devices
Amazon Science
Start Selling with Amazon
Sell apps on Amazon
Supply to Amazon
Protect & Build Your Brand
Become an Affiliate
Become a Delivery Driver
Start a Package Delivery Business
Advertise Your Products
Self-Publish with Us
Host an Amazon Hub
› See More Ways to Make Money
Amazon Visa
Amazon Store Card
Amazon Secured Card
Amazon Business Card
Shop with Points
Credit Card Marketplace
Reload Your Balance
Amazon Currency Converter
Your Account
Your Orders
Shipping Rates & Policies
Amazon Prime
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices
Your Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Your Ads Privacy Choices

"We waste our money so you don't have to."

"We waste our money, so you don't have to."

Movie Review

US Release Date: 12-19-1990

Directed by: Franco Zeffirelli

Starring ▸ ▾

Mel Gibson , as
Glenn Close , as
Alan Bates , as
Paul Scofield , as
Ian Holm , as
Helena Bonham Carter , as
Stephen Dillane , as
Nathaniel Parker , as
Sean Murray , as
Guildenstern
Michael Maloney , as
Rosencrantz
Trevor Peacock , as
The Gravedigger
Pete Postlethwaite as
Player King

Alas, poor Mel Gibson! I knew him when he was on top of the world.

In 1990 Mel Gibson was on top of the world. He was the star of the Lethal Weapon and Mad Max series of films along with many others, some, like The Year of Living Dangerously , even critically respected. In 1985 he was People Magazine's original Sexiest Man Alive. As popular as he was at the time though, the idea of his portraying Hamlet was a bold one. It certainly wasn't an obvious choice either by the filmmakers or by Gibson himself. Not only does he deserve credit for taking on the role, he actually does a surprisingly good job in the part.

Isaac Asimov told a story of a woman who read Hamlet for the first time and said, "I don't see why people admire that play so. It is nothing but a bunch of quotations strung together." It's an amusing anecdote, but the play does indeed contain so many famous lines that have been quoted endlessly that you can almost excuse her. It certainly contains the six most famous written words in the English language with "To be, or not to be". Everyone is familiar with that sentence and most would recognize dozens of others even if they've never actually seen the play performed.

Certainly more people saw this version of Hamlet because of Gibson's presence than would normally have seen it and that can only be a good thing. I view this version almost like one of those old classic comics where great works of literature were turned into comic books. Those comics acted as an introduction to those stories and this movie does the same.

Surely everyone is familiar with the story of Hamlet. He is the prince of Denmark whose father, the king, has died. Instead of Hamlet ascending to the throne, his uncle has taken the crown and Hamlet's mother for his own. When the ghost of Hamlet's father visits him, Hamlet learns that his father was murdered by his uncle and Hamlet swears revenge. Pretending to be mad, Hamlet plots and plans, but seems unable to bring himself to actually take action. It may sound like a medieval soap opera and really it is, but it is also full of meaning, deep themes regarding the very nature of life and death while also containing some of the most beautiful writing ever put on paper.

This version was directed by Franco Zeffirelli who had also directed Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in The Taming of the Shrew as well as the definitive film version of Romeo & Juliet . More than just casting Gibson in the lead, Zeffirelli mixes up the play by editing it to a great degree and changing some of the dialogue, even going so far to reassign some of the lines to different characters. He also lays out the story and motivations very plainly, leaving very little to interpretation. This has the effect of speeding up the story and makes it more accessible to mainstream audiences.

One often mentioned aspect of the film is the closeness in age between Hamlet and his mother played by Glenn Close who is just 9 years older than Gibson. The closeness in their ages is accentuated by the youthful portrayal of Close who runs and practically skips with joy at the beginning of the film for all the world like a giddy schoolgirl in love for the first time. The Oedipal angle is certainly played up strongly in this version, particularly in the bedroom scene between Gertrude and Hamlet and their closeness in age makes this side of things even clearer.

Gibson does well in the lead role. He's an energetic Hamlet and his natural comic charm bleeds into the character occasionally, but overall he is surprisingly capable. His isn't the most nuanced of portrayals, but it's effective nonetheless. He certainly proved those critics wrong who assumed he would embarrass himself just trying. I actually think it was quite brave of him to do the role at all and shows that he was not only a huge star, but also a serious actor.

The look of the film is quite beautiful. Three different castles and numerous sets were used to recreate Elsinore castle where most of the story takes place. There are twists and turns amongst the turrets and throne rooms and is exactly what we expect a castle to look like.

Hamlet purists and Shakespeare snobs may turn their nose up or dismiss this version, but it is surprisingly entertaining and well made nonetheless.

Glenn Close and Mel Gibson emote in Hamlet .

Scott's comparison of this movie to those old comic book versions of classic novels is apt. Like those comics, Zeffirelli aimed this Hamlet squarely at the masses. The dialogue has been greatly reduced and simplified, and, as my brother wrote, it is edited more like an action flick than your typical cinematic rendering of Shakespeare. The director has always done the Bard much better than he handles contemporary films such as Endless Love or his completely unnecessary remake of The Champ . Zeffirelli's penchant for melodrama suits the larger than life quality of Shakespeare's stories and these incredbly vividly written characters, but it sometimes seems forced and false in the modern world.

The casting of Gibson in the most famous role in the history of history was an unexpected move not seen in Hollywood since Marlon Brando famously played Mark Antony in the 1953 version of Julius Caesar . Gibson carries it off with a very physical performance. There's nothing subtle about his soul searching or his torment but Gibson has three things needed for the part down pat; anguish, bitterness, and anger. He spits and snarls out lines like a caged animal. He brings nothing new to his readings of some of the most famous spoken sentences in the English language, but, as Scott already mentioned, neither does he embarrass himself.

As unlikely as it seems, Glenn Close had never previously acted in a Shakespearean production, on the stage or on the screen, before playing Hamlet's mother Gertrude in this movie. Despite being just nine years older than Gibson she is nonetheless believable as his mother. Especially when compared to Laurence Olivier's vaunted 1948 version in which he played the titular Prince of Denmark. His mother was portrayed by the 12 years younger Eileen Herlie! Close matches Gibson grimace for grimace and shriek for shriek as they compete for the audience's attention. Close winning by a nose as she gives one of the hammiest death scenes in the history of cinema. But these words were meant to soar and together Gibson and Close race each other up the giddy slope of overacting.

Helena Bonham Carter makes an impression as the tragic Ophelia. Her descent into a misty madness leading to a watery grave is tenderly wrought. Ophelia has always been the saddest of characters. As her brother Laertes laments, ”Oh Heavens, is it possible a young maid's wits can be as mortal as an old man's life?”

The remainder of the pedigreed cast all give solid readings. Alan Bates is perfectly despicable as Claudius, and Paul Scofield is memorable in the small but important role of The Ghost. Bates had previously played Hamlet on stage, as had Scofield, who was considered to be one of the preeminent Shakespearean actors of the Twentieth Century. Ian Holm embodies the gregarious sophistry of Polonius.

The first time I saw a movie adaptation of Shakespeare was in high school. In my junior year British Literature class we watched Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet. I can think of no other filmmaker who has been able so successfully to translate Shakespeare onto celluloid. Zefferelli proves the truth about the Bard's work. These plays weren't written to be highbrow. It is only the constantly changing English language that has made them seem so. Zeffirelli cuts to the heart of the story. He simplifies and updates the Bard's language while remaining faithful to the spirit and emotional truth of the original play.

For modern audiences there is no better entrance into the world of William Shakespeare than through the work of Franco Zeffirelli, and there's no better place to begin than Hamlet .

Get thee to a nunnery.

Mel Gibson was clearly hired to play Hamlet for box office insurance. In 1990 he was one of the biggest movie stars in the world. Gibson was however, horribly miscast as Hamlet because he looked too old for the part. Hamlet is at best 24, while Gibson was 34 but looked 44. Gibson’s age is noticeably bothersome whenever he does a scene with Glenn Close, who looks as young, or even younger, than Gibson, even though she is playing his mother. Helena Bonham Carter, who is ten years younger than Gibson, plays his girlfriend but when they share a scene, she looks more like his daughter than his paramour.

However, and this is a big however, Mel Gibson delivers a riveting performance wearing Hamlet’s emotions on his face for all to see. Sure, as Patrick stated, you could call it over-acting but this is Shakespeare and the drama is all there is. You never have to guess what anyone is thinking, most of all Gibson. You see his anger, jealousy, rage, frustration and his mask of insanity. It is one juicy role and Mel Gibson throws himself full force into it. His age may betray him but his acting never does.

Again agreeing with my brothers, Franco Zeffirelli made some great decisions in how he edited this story. I heard that the play can last something like four hours. Cutting it down to two was the only way to go. Who could possibly sit through a four hour Shakespeare film?

Not to worry, all of the famous lines remain. As Scott noted, you may have heard of some of them without ever even knowing where they originated. Besides the most famous one that Scott mentioned, there are such renowned lines as, “Frailty, thy name is woman.” “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” “This above all: to thine own self be true.” and “Good night, sweet prince. And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.” The line that surprised me the most was one that I recite to myself whenever I am tired. “To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,” I had forgotten that it is part of Hamlet’s soliloquy.

Although Kenneth Branagh has made great efforts to do so, I agree with Patrick that Zeffirelli is brilliant at adapting Shakespeare for the silver screen. He may not be as strict at following the source material as Branagh but Zeffirelli’s versions are certainly more accessible to the general masses.

Photos © Copyright Warner Bros. Pictures (1990)

Related Review

Free Samples and Examples of Essays, Homeworks and any Papers

Absolutely free
Perfect homeworks
Fast relevant search
No registration and Anonymous

Contrast Of Hamlet – Gibson And Branagh

Filed Under: Essays Tagged With: ghost

An example of two different movies that have the same title, contain a scene that is essentially getting the same message across, but differ so much in the depiction of two scenes, would be hamlet. In 1990, Mel Gibson and Paul Scofield played the role of prince hamlet, and the ghost of king hamlet. 6 years later, in 1996, another version of hamlet was released, starring Kenneth Branagh as prince hamlet, and Brian Blessed as the Ghost of hamlet. These two films were very much the same in terms of characters, and the point being made to the audience. At the same time, however, the way these two films were depicted was entirely different. The two main differences between these two films were the cinematography, and the setting.

The first difference between the two films is the cinematography. The three main deciphering factors of cinematography include camera angles, zoom, and the lighting. In the Branagh version, the camera was tilted up looking at the ghost, and tilted down looking at hamlet. This created the effect that the ghost was bigger and wiser then hamlet, and that hamlet looked at the ghost as a higher figure, or someone he was frightened or intimidated by. In the Gibson version, the camera was tilted down towards both the ghost, and hamlet. In the Branagh version, the zoom was focused on the eyes and mouth or the ghost. This put a focus on the emotion and tone of the ghost. In the Gibson version, the zoom was focused on the faces of the characters only. In the Branagh version, the lighting was bright on the face of the ghost, as to create the feel that the ghost was not human. In the Gibson version, the lighting was faded on the ghost, as to create a sad emotion of the ghost.

The Essay on Play Hamlet vs. Mel Gibson’s movie version

Performance Analysis of Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” My performance analysis is based on Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark”. This production was directed by Franco Zeffirelli and starred Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Alan Bates, and Paul Scofield. In this production of Hamlet, the original old English is used. However, I noticed that any dialog that was ...

The second difference between the two films is the setting in which each scene takes place. In the Branagh version, the scene takes place in the woods. The back drop of nature creates the feeling of insecurity for hamlet, and adds to the tone and emotion of the ghost. Hamlet is clearly very intimidated. The ground is steaming, the trees seem endless, and it looks very cold and secluded. Hamlet has no escape, and has to face the ghost. In the Gibson version, the setting takes place in a castle, just as the scene takes place in a castle in the original play. The scene in the Gibson version has more of a sad emotion, as the ghost pleads for hamlet to take revenge on his murderer. This keeps the feeling for hamlet that this is his father, king hamlet, and he must seek revenge on the murderer, for his fathers sake.

In my opinion, the Branagh version did a much better job in getting the ghosts point across to hamlet. The emotion was much stronger, and the setting and cinematography added much more to the general feel to the movie then the Branagh version did. These two films are very much alike in their title, plot, and storyline. At the same time, however, these similar films contain two scenes that are very much different in their cinematography, and the setting in which the scenes take place.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Hamlet – Staring Mel Gibson – 1990Hamlet – Staring Kenneth Branagh – 1996

Similar Papers

Hamlet – lucid summaries of each scene.

... emotions of the scene. Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter to inform Hamlet ... ghost appears and Hamlet addresses it. The ghost does not answer but motions for Hamlet to follow him. Hamlet ... the trial can take place and Hamlet states he will comply ...

Hamlet Ghost Bitter Cold

Hamlet - Ghost The presence of the apparition in the opening scene of William Shakespeare " hamlet sets a macabre and eerie tone while emitting ... live in everlasting bliss, orin purgatory, or in the place of damned persons; and that divers of the mare ...

King Hamlet Ghost Fact Play

... he reveals a true fact involving the death of King Hamlet: Ghost. I find thee apt; and duller shouldst thou the fat ... thing. In act 1 scene 1 it is revealed that the ghost appeared twice wearing the same armor King Hamlet wore when he ...

Literary Devices Hamlet Ghost Reader

... diction. From this scene the reader learns how Hamlet's father dies, and the Ghost's feelings towards the situation. But Hamlet and the Ghost's feelings of ... enhance the mind's ability to really explore the depths of emotion.

Hamlet Commentary on Act 3 Scene 1 Lines 64 – 98

... ghost of King Hamlet reveals to young Hamlet about the murder, he creates the heavy burden for himself of avenging his father. His emotions ... are trapped inside himself and sees death as a solution to end his suffering.The thoughts Hamlet ...

Hamlet – Ghost’s Speech – Act 1

... by the supposed appearance of the late King Hamlet’s ghost. The ghost’s appearance and subsequent speech intensify the disorder by ... the motif of unnatural existence in “Hamlet” as exemplified by the ghost. The ghost refers to public opinion as “the ...

eNgLiSh ThReE

Thursday, may 5, 2011, hamlet: the first ghost scene, no comments:.

Which Version Of The Hamlet Ghost Scene (Act 1 Scene 5) Was The Most Effective And Why.

Which Version Of The Hamlet Ghost Scene (Act 1 Scene 5)

Was The Most Effective And Why.

In the Kenneth Branagh film the ghost scene is set in an orchard on the castle grounds, presumably where Hamlet’s father was murdered. It is a very detailed setting, there are lots of trees, which add to the atmosphere by making the characters appear enclosed and trapped. It is also dark and gloomy which creates an intense atmosphere, but in my opinion these things make the ghost scene less believable and which makes the ghost seem less believable so consequently the scene is less effective.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Ethan Hawke film is slightly more recent and it tries to be more modern and contemporary, which is a different conception of the original play, and obviously unlike the way Shakespeare would have imagined the setting appearing when he wrote the play. There are lots of modern things used as props such as the TV, that wouldn’t have been around when the play was written. Its set in a modern studio apartment with big glass windows and the setting creates a lack of atmosphere, which in turn means this version of the ghost scene doesn’t do the original play justice.

The actors in the 1990 version starring Mel Gibson were very convincing. Mel Gibson played Hamlet with lots of emotion and expressed the fact that Hamlet was going crazy well. He used lots of facial expressions to convey passionate anger. He speaks in various tones, sometimes loud, sometimes more quiet, which helps to create tension. He also makes gestures with his sword, which suggests his anger and spite towards his uncle Claudius. The actor who plays the ghost is also effective, as he tells Hamlet he was murdered by his brother, by not directly saying what he means. The ghost in the Mel Gibson film lacked make-up compared to the ghost in the Kenneth Branagh and Ethan Hawke though, which slightly let the scene down, but the ghost was meant to appear alive and as a normal person though. Overall the acting was very believable.

In the Kenneth Branagh version, from 1993, the actors seem to vary the pace of the scene, Kenneth Branagh like Mel Gibson, expresses anger well, with an effective delivery of lines from all the actors. The actor who plays the ghost uses facial expressions to add to the atmosphere. He appears with his eyes glazed over, and he looks white and pale, which is was very effective in making the ghost appear dead.

The acting in the Ethan Hawke version of Hamlet is not as plausible as in the other two films. The actors appear wooden, and there is a lack of emotion in the way both Hamlet and the Ghost speak. Overall the scene is less effective; there is no real atmosphere created by the actors and it is very tame.

The costumes in the Mel Gibson film were very traditional and old fashioned which fitted in with the setting and the period the film was first set in. they were very dark which added to the mood of the scene. As in all the films the costume doesn’t really make the scene any more effective, they are just elements needed in the scene, which aren’t crucially important. The make up of the ghost helps to make him look normal, not as a ghost or spirit, like in the other films.

The costumes in the ghost scene of the Kenneth Branagh were also very traditional, much the same as the costumes in the Mel Gibson film, as they were both set in the same period. Hamlet’s father’s ghost wore lots of white make-up to make himself appear dead. This wasn’t very effective as it looked cheap and over the top. In my opinion the costumes and the make-up were over the top.

The music in the Mel Gibson film started daunting and loud when Hamlet is running towards the ghost, and the music sets the pace of the lines from the two characters. There is low light and most of that comes from the moon, which is effective because it creates tension and suspense, and makes you wonder what will happen next. The music along with the lighting create an atmosphere of tension, but seemed to make the scene into too much of a Hollywood blockbuster film, and in my opinion isn’t how a classic Shakespeare ghost scene would go.

In the Kenneth Branagh version, there too, is also a lot of loud music, which is fast paced and sets the scene for when the ground shakes, and then breaks for the ghost appears. The music is orchestral which in any film adds to the tension. The lighting is quite bright, which ruins the atmosphere slightly my making it less dramatic.

In the Mel Gibson film the atmosphere is built up in a number of ways. Hamlet is holding a sword, which suggests danger, because you, as the audience, don’t know what he’s going to do with it. Also the fast pace and then sudden change of the lines and music creates tension throughout the scene. Tension is also built up by the way the characters deliver their lines. They say them quietly and in different tones, to keep the audience’s interest right through the scene.

In the Kenneth Branagh film, tension is built up by making the ghost of Hamlet’s father appear from the shaking ground, and there is a good use of special effects to build up the atmosphere, which makes the audience wonder what will happen next. Scenes in the orchard building after also help to build up the tension as Hamlet realises what’s happened.

After evaluating the three films, I stuck by my decision that the Mel Gibson version, from 1990, was a better production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, than the versions with Kenneth Branagh in (1996) and Ethan Hawke (2001). I think this because it proved to be the more original film, and the other two films were weaker and not as good as the Mel Gibson version, when comparing different aspects of the films. The Mel Gibson film had a setting, which fitted in better with the one from the original play, the acting was more believable and the costumes and make up represented the characters emotions. The lighting wasn’t as good as that of the Kenneth Branagh version, but overall I believe it was the better film at creating atmosphere and tension and therefore it was more effective.

Which Version Of The Hamlet Ghost Scene (Act 1 Scene 5) Was The Most Effective And Why.

Document Details

Word Count 1469
Page Count 3
Subject English

Related Essays

My Final Version of the Ghost Scene of 'Hamlet'.

"Spirit of health or goblin damned?" How do we understand the ghost in Act...

Exploring Hamlet's state of mind(Act 1, Scene 2 - Act 1, Scene 5)

Consider the three treatments of the Ghost Scene in Hamlet that you viewed....

Hamlet’s Father’s Ghost’s Scenes #3 & #4

The Kozontzev HAMLET is grand and the ghost is particularly fine. If you want a spectacular, epic vision of the ghost, you couldn’t really do better. Something about the particular tone of this movie isn’t quite up my alley but I have no end of admiration for the showmanship here. Why don’t any of the other versions make use of the possibiities of BILLOWING CLOAKS?

(Does Branagh, perhaps? I’ve forgotten already, but I’ll remind myself soon when I rewatch and write about his ghost encounters. Flowing robes seems a very Branaghlike trope.)

I’m here today to break down the Franco Zeffirelli HAMLET though — the one with Mad Mel. Just two arch-Catholics hanging out together in a Scottish castle.

FZ — I keep thinking that must stand for Frank Zappa, but never mind — foolishly omits the ghost’s first appearance, which gets his film off to a far weaker start. But he has a great cast, except for his Hamlet. Mad Mel has foolishly seized on the chance to do some Great Acting, whereas the thing he could and does contribute most effectively is Movie Star Presence. This is diluted by his attempts to get flowery.

Along with Mel, we have the excellent Stephen Dillane as Horatio, and some other guys I don’t know as Marcellus etc. It’s fine not having well-known faces in every role, in fact it’s preferable to the insanely overstuffed Branagh.

Hamlet is bemoaning his uncle’s wassails, if you’ll pardon the expression, viewing him through an unconvincing grill (I don’t know if you’d want a giant hole in your banquet room ceiling, not in Denmark, although I guess before chimneys were invented you might need something like that so you don’t asphyxiate). In addition to supporting players like Alan Bates, Glenn Close (only 11 years older than her screen son), Ian Holm and Helena Bonham-Carter, FZ has David Watkin on camera and Ennio Morricone on score. Neither of these great talents was doing their most exciting work by this time, but the film looks and sounds good. Watkin and designer Maurizio Millenotti can’t quite convince me the tower set is a real place, and although I suppose with a medieval tower at midnight some form of artifice is always going to be involved. MM was also costume designer, had worked for Fellini, and Gibson would import him for his acclaimed how-to guide to crucifixion, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

I should mention that unfortunately the only copy I could get is 4:3, and it’s not open-matte, meaning I can’t crop it to the right ratio: we’re missing a third of the image. So any aesthetic judgements come with major provisos — we’re not really seeing the film FZ made, even allowing for the reduction in size and definition. Plus my copy is glitchy.

What’s good about the ghost’s first appearance here is that he’s just a colourless figure in the distance. What’s uncanny about him is that everyone recognizes him as a dead man. He’s far enough away that there could be some doubt, which makes things even more worrying, in a way. At a certain distance, you can be sure you know the person you’re looking at, but you could still try to sell yourself on the idea that you’ve made a mistake.

I think all this would be better if we’d had the ghost’s first appearance, though.

FZ’s editor has some unlikely credits. Richard Marden had cut the Olivier OTHELLO (yikes) before being adopted by Stanley Donen for BEDAZZLED and TWO FOR THE ROAD, and then cut the dazzling SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY for John Schlesinger. But he also cut SLEUTH, which I don’t think is a well-edited movie (but Olivier was having trouble with his lines, which may have caused problems), and also also garbage like CARRY ON ENGLAND and WHAT’S UP NURSE! and returned to Donen’s side for the regrettable SATURN 3.

This would all work great except the first shot of the HFG (Hamlet’s Father’s Ghost) shows Paul Scofield, for it is he, in a medium shot, defying all sense of optical POV. And then he gets another closer shot later. This takes me out of the reality of the scene, and in trying to startle us — and it’s not particularly startling — by having PS enter in MS — the film breaks the reality of the scene. If you were Horatio or his chum, you’d first see a wide shot, and then you might filter out the surrounding scenery and mentally create a kind of medium shot. But you couldn’t start with that.

In other words, all the wide shots of the ghost are great, Mel advancing from the distance to his own MS is good, but jumping in for impossible detail views harms the scene. It’s a bit like the horrific moment in THE PIANIST when Nazis throw a disabled man from a window, and Polanski’s camera watches from the window opposite, never taking you unnaturally close. The drama comes from the sense of REALITY, and attempting to amp it up with close-ups would actually detract from that, by putting us where we couldn’t be.

Good bit of following, and the Mel gets up on the tower and finds himself alone. A nice bit of the uncanny. There’s nowhere else the ghost could have gone. And then he’s there — an equally impossible thing.

Gibson’s attempts to get action movie stuff into HAMLET are NOT actually embarrassing: it’s what he’s best at, after all. So he swirls around with his sword, sees the ghost — and immediately drops it.

Great shot of Scofield, just sitting there, making a strange, ineffectual movement, lowering one hand from the battlement, attempting to look as mild and unthreatening as possible, and looking VERY SAD — sad that his only son is afraid of him, I think. A great choice. As impressive as Olivier and Kosintsev’s ghosts are, they can’t do this kind of human stuff.

And then the scene is McKellan’s, and we’re in very good hands. Scofield is quite old to be Gibson’s dad, just as Glenn Close is quite young. The positive side of this is we can imagine her preferring Alan Bates. But that voice! No better casting was possible.

The cutting of the dialogue here is quite good — whenever we see Gibson, it is possible to imagine everything the ghost says being in his mind (the ghost tells Hamlet exactly what, in a sense, he wants to believe, hence “Oh my prophetic soul!”) If Gibson were stronger I’d say hold on him more, but as it is the balance is good and Gibson gets through the scene respectably, mainly just listening and reacting. His bigger moments seem forced.

Slow track in on Scofield, and an even weirder hand movement at 4:08. Somehow Lynchian, in that one senses some crazy backstory there we’re not getting. “But that I am forbid to tell…” The movement seems to ward off whatever harrowing power forbids the ghost.

PG Wodehouse has forever ruined “like quills upon the fretful porpentine” as a dramatic line, if it ever did work, so I don’t miss that bit.

At 4.47 Scofield is suddenly being viewed from a new angle, even though Hamlet, whose POV we assume it to be, hasn’t moved recently. It seems likely that, having no doubt already pruned the text, FZ and his cutter have decided to snip out a chunk of footage. Indeed, all through this scene the dialogue has been savagely slashed, but it kind of has to be for a movie. Even for a play.

Scofield has the best male voice maybe ever. I mean, Richard Burton, yes, and I am partial to a bit of James Coburn, but Scofield is somehow less obvious, he achieves his gravitas without the need for Sensurround rumble. He’s much of what makes Patrick Keillor’s LONDON and ROBINSON IN SPACE two favourite things — I can’t watch Keillor without Scofield, the vacuum left is unfillable.

I started to wonder whether, at some point in this sequence, Hamlet might not want to go to his father. Sure, the man’s a ghost and therefore scary, but as the scene goes on and Hamlet gets over his initial doubt and feels pity for his poor old dad, might it not be a good idea to dramatise that by having him actually approach. And FZ takes my hint — the ghost comes forwards, saying “Adieu” — a bizarro choice but Scofield, but one he sells — if you’re a ghost, you can vanish while walking towards someone — and as the ghost reaches out, Hamlet in turn reaches up — whether to fend off the spook, embrace him, or to stop his own head from exploding, we cannot know — and the reverse angle reveals the HFG has indeed vanished.

The ghost’s “Remember me” is absolutely heartbreaking and haunting.

Now the floor is Mel’s, so things get quite a bit worse quite fast. It’s not a bad choice to have H return to where he has a view of his uncle’s revelling, so he can be looking right at the damned villain while he curses him. But FZ and his cutter include closeups of Bates, midrevel, and have neglected to shoot it from a high angle, so I find its inclusion jarring and clumsy. H then has the line about his “tables” but he hasn’t got any school jotter on him, so the schoolkids in the audience are destined to remain puzzled — he borrows a leaf from Nicol Williamson’s sweaty book and tries to carve his vow on the castle’s stonework with his sword. Sparks fly! Not convinced he could wield a sharp sword that way without losing some fingers.

I think directors should probably listen to the author when he has Hamlet call for his tables, and actually give him some tables. I expect this was done a lot on the stage until it came to seem cliche. but you can enliven tired business, you don’t have to chuck it out completely.

The last bit feels like H should still be writing, but Mel does it as H swearing on his sword, then hyperventilates a bit — this is all quite forced — then suddenly drops out of view. The rest is silence — until Kenneth bloody Branagh rocks up, a mere six years later. Tune in next time to hear Prince Hamlet say… absolutely everything.

4 Responses to “Hamlet’s Father’s Ghost’s Scenes #3 & #4”

Somewhere out there is a television production with Richard Chamberlain as the melancholy Dane. A big TV star as Dr. Kildare, Chamberlain came to Birmingham in 1969 for a stage production and seems to have not embarrassed himself. In 1970 he played it in a Hallmark Hall of Fame special; not sure how much of the Birmingham production was carried over.

I remember seeing that one. For the ending tableau the four leads managed to fall dead with their feet all aimed at a central point, where Fortinbras stands and surveys the carnage. We get a Busby Berkeley shot from above, and even this high school drama ham thought, that’s silly.

A few years later at UC Santa Cruz I missed out on a nearby semi-pro production, infamous because the director decided the times needed Hamlet to be an unambiguous good-guy hero (Among other choices, Polonius runs onto his sword and is accidentally impaled). Rumor was this Hamlet had done porn films.

Wow! There’s the 1964 TV Hamlet at Elsinore with Christopher Plummer, directed by BBC mainstay Philip Saville, and a German version with Maximilian Schell which turned up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 even though it’s not scifi and not terrible.

The Richard Burton Broadway version directed by Gielgud was caught on film and I plan to see it but not for the filming. I anticipate heartiness and glowering.

The Chamberlain, in the worst quality imaginable, made even worse by the uploader by cropping it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLoCQAu6iWg&ab_channel=Stybz

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Follow Following
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

HAMLET (1990)

Murder, some violence, sexual innuendoes, and Elizabethan oaths

More Detail:

Horatio’s parting words to the Prince of Denmark, “Good night, sweet Prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest,” bring to a close yet another version of HAMLET. In this case, Franco Zeffirelli directs Mel Gibson as the melancholy Dane, Alan Bates as the scheming Claudius, Glenn Close as his gullible, deceived mother, and thus gives us a masterpiece!

Zeffirelli’s HAMLET touches the story’s heart in its opening scene of the old king’s funeral. Thus, the new king’s line, “Think of us as a father,” is pregnant with meaning. Also established in this scene is Hamlet’s agonizing relationship with his mother who has become “my father’s brother’s wife” when Hamlet’s father has been dead only two months.

One of Shakespeare’s most outstanding tragedies, HAMLET is overflowing with marvelous, memorable lines–each pregnant with meanings that capture the heart, mind and soul of the viewer. In Hamlet’s discourse with Guilderstern and Rosencrantz, for example, Hamlet echoes Psalm eight: “What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving, how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world; the paragon of animals.”

Zeffirelli’s HAMLET admirably captures Hamlet’s struggles to avenge his father’s murder. Hamlet’s indecisiveness and ambivalence following the disclosure by his father’s ghost are reflected in his much-quoted soliloquy: “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” Of significance, modern audiences can relate to Hamlet’s agonizing problems. Today, our struggles come under the heading of stress, and we are often as indecisive as Hamlet in resolving our problems.

The film is also full of treachery, intrigue and violence as Hamlet seeks revenge. He resolutely feigns madness, gives up his love for Ophelia and kills the obnoxious Polonius. He also deals adroitly with the spies, Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, cleverly plans “a play within a play” with the travelling actors to “catch the conscience of the king,” and, finally, out-fences the treacherous Laertes, only to die by a poisoned sword.

Shakespeare’s Elizabethan English in HAMLET poses no real stumbling block for a modern viewer. The language, after all, is still English, but used more expansively and memorably. Also, the actors in this film give their lines convincingly with clarity and skill thereby overcoming most language barriers. The viewer does need to listen carefully in order to enjoy the music and depth of Shakespeare’s lines, however.

HAMLET is an extremely well-produced movie. The court setting has been imaginatively constructed so that the actors’ exits and entrances appear natural, not contrived. The costumes, while authentically reflecting medieval court dress, are simple and even plain.

The photography, overall, is splendid, too. Zeffirelli, for instance, frequently captures the sea in the background to frame his scenes. The realistic photography in the grave-digging scene where Hamlet addresses the skull of Yorick, the Court Jester, also proves memorable.

Best of all, Mel Gibson is believable and superb as Hamlet. The depth of his acting came as quite a pleasant surprise. Also, Alan Bates is perfect as Claudius. Unfortunately, Glenn Close and Helena Bonham-Carter are not as good as they could be. Ms. Close drifts into her fatal attraction character at times, while Helena does a superb mad scene, but fails to seem real or attractive in her early scenes with Hamlet. Thus, the audience wonders, “What does Hamlet see in this young woman?” Helena can do better and did so in LADY JANE (a great movie). Of course, the fault lies not with these two fine actresses, but probably with director Zeffirelli, whose own sexual ambiguity no doubt contributes to his fine direction of men and his spotty direction of women. However, Mr. Zeffirelli has done a superb job of trimming the four-hour epic into a fast-paced, entertaining film which captures the essence of the play and the total attention of the viewer.

Even with Shakespeare, however, there are some cautions for Christians. Ophelia’s “mad scene” contains fairly graphic sexual innuendo, to mention one place, and Elizabethan oaths can be close to modern day cursing with utterances such as “G d’s Blood.”

As commentators have noted, William Shakespeare, along with others of his day, shared a strong, biblical, Christian value system (In fact, recent commentators suggest that he must have been a Christian after analyzing his writing). Wrongs needed to be righted, and good must triumph over evil. When sin is covered over, the outcome is a tragic one, as we see in HAMLET. How refreshing to understand through a film like HAMLET that “he that covers his sin shall not prosper,” including that of marital infidelity, and to see God’s justice win out. MOVIEGUIDE highly recommends Zeffirelli’s HAMLET. It is a masterpiece and a must for every student of drama and every person who wants to be really entertained.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please address your comments to:

Mr. Barry Reardon

Warner Brothers, Inc.

4000 Warner Blvd

Burbank, CA 91522

(818) 954-6290

Now more than ever we’re bombarded by darkness in media, movies, and TV. Movieguide® has fought back for almost 40 years, working within Hollywood to propel uplifting and positive content. We’re proud to say we’ve collaborated with some of the top industry players to influence and redeem entertainment for Jesus. Still, the most influential person in Hollywood is you. The viewer.

What you listen to, watch, and read has power. Movieguide® wants to give you the resources to empower the good and the beautiful. But we can’t do it alone. We need your support.

You can make a difference with as little as $7. It takes only a moment. If you can, consider supporting our ministry with a monthly gift. Thank you.

Movieguide® is a 501c3 and all donations are tax deductible.

A New Way To Experience Family Night

A family devotional that combines your favorite movies with Gospel truths!
An exciting and fun way to grow spiritually and together as a family
Download for FREE right now and transform your family movie nights

Enter your email to download your free devotion for families!

" * " indicates required fields

Friend's Email Address

Your Email Address

Cast & crew
User reviews

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, returns home to find his father murdered and his mother remarrying the murderer, his uncle. Meanwhile, war is brewing. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, returns home to find his father murdered and his mother remarrying the murderer, his uncle. Meanwhile, war is brewing. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, returns home to find his father murdered and his mother remarrying the murderer, his uncle. Meanwhile, war is brewing.

Kenneth Branagh
William Shakespeare
Julie Christie
Derek Jacobi
272 User reviews
70 Critic reviews
See production info at IMDbPro
9 wins & 25 nominations total

Attendant to Claudius
(as Riz Abbasi)

English Ambassador

Ghost of Hamlet's Father

First Gravedigger
Stage Manager

Guildenstern

Attendant to Gertrude
All cast & crew
Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

Trivia Robin Williams and Billy Crystal were not allowed to be on the set at the same time during filming, for fear they would crack up the cast and crew, and cause major production delays.
Goofs In the very long shot along the length of the throne room, the cameras are visible in the mirrors.

Hamlet : A little more than kin and less than kind.

Alternate versions Two versions should have been theatrically released at the same time: a complete 242-minutes director's cut shown only in selected venues (large key cities) and a shorter, wide-release version that ran about two-and-a-half hours. After some critical backlash, Castle Rock decided to release the complete 4 hours everywhere in the US and use the shorter version for some overseas territories.
Connections Featured in Siskel & Ebert: Mars Attacks!/Marvin's Room/The Preacher's Wife/Hamlet/Citizen Ruth (1996)
Soundtracks In Pace Music by Patrick Doyle Performed by Plácido Domingo Text for The Book of Wisdom Text researched and adapted by Russell Jackson Recorded at Studio 33, Hamburg, Germany Engineered by Ambrogio Crotte and Luis Rodriguez Original soundtrack available on Sony Classical Records