Talk:Hamlet (1996 film)

Untitled
Corrected 65mm to 70mm, Also changed "as of winter 2006" to "as of winter 2005" since as of this writing, that time has not occured yet. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Towzzer (talk • contribs).


 * Winter is the months of Jan, Feb and first 20 days of March (or so). There are only 10 days of Winter that carry into the new year.  So, up here north of the equator...Winter 2006 has come, and well almost gone. -Thebdj 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

70mm is actually incorrect. Theatrical prints are 70mm wide but the raw shooting stock is 65mm. Also changed "as of 2010" to "to date" so the reference doesn't become dated as time passes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.25.194 (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
I was wondering if someone coiuld make the search phrase "Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh)" redirect to this article. Currently, this search phrase brings up a list of articles and only the fifth on the list is the film. This search phrase can be used at other websites while searching for the film (Amazon.com for example, and IMDb as well,) and I'm sure many pepople performing a casual search and don't know the exact date the film was made would use these, or similar, key words. Thank you.

P.S. I would do it myself, but I'm clueless in that respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.93.109 (talk • contribs).


 * I see that this hasn't been done, and I do think it would be a good thing to do. I had to go through several Shakespere pages to find this page, all because I did not know the year it was released.  I also do not know how to add a re-direct, so I renew this request for someone to do this.Aufs klo 03:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. It's actually quite easy. :-)--Oneiros 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --The 70.77.93.109 guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.23.254 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Hamlet 1996 poster.jpg
Image:Hamlet 1996 poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The film's run time
There seems to be conflicting info on the net about the run time for this film. It was easy enough to check what the actual run time was by pulling the DVD off my shelf and popping it in the player. First off the info on the DVD cover states a run time of 242 minutes. It is a two disc set so here are the run times for each disc. Disc ones run time is 2 hours 37 minutes and 45 seconds. Disc two is 1h 24m 7s. Add these together and you get 4h 1m 52s or just eight seconds short of 242 minutes. Amazingly IMDb has it right this time. I am not sure what other sources are giving the 232 run time but the accuracy of the time counters on DVD players makes it easy to check these things out. MarnetteD | Talk 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The video says 232 mins. I have just fast-forwarded it through the machine, and it ended at 3hrs 52 mins according to the video timer. I excluded the short time taken up with the copyright warning at the beginning. Perhaps the DVD includes some extra material or perhaps some content is present on both DVDs (credits?). Paul B 09:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Paul Barlow. I watched the DVD when it was released a month or so ago. It is presented as the film was in the theatre. It does not double up the credits nor does it add any extraneous material. I dug through some boxes and found my VHS of the film. It is a two tape set. On the lower right corner of the back of the box it states that the film is 242 minutes long. Skipping the opening ad for another film and the copyright warning tape one is 2h 38m 19s and tape two is 1h 24m 5s adding up to 4h 2m 24s. Tape and disc one end with the intermission logo and tape and disc two begins with a 50sec recap of the action in part one (which was shown in the theatre when I saw it) and then picks up the action with a scene of Ophelia in a straight jacket throughing herself against the walls of her cell. A check of the film reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (who list it at an absurd 4h 26m) that were written in '96 shows most of them listing it at 236 to 240 minutes. This is within the variables of camera run speeds at the time. None of the documentaries or the commentary on the DVD mention any scenes being added in that weren't part of the films release. All of my info comes from US releases of the film. When I saw it at the theatre back in '96 I was in the theatre for roughly 4 hrs and 20 mins which included the intermission break. I am not sure what country you are writing from but it is possible that there have been some scenes editied out for releases other than the US one. If your VHS is all on one tape does it play at SLP? I know that this wouldn't affect the run time but scenes might have been cut to allow for getting the whole film on one tape. There is also the variation of run speeds for VHS between the UK PAL format and the US one (whose abbreviation escapes me at the moment but I think that it starts with an N.) I know that we are both trying to get this correct so I look forward to anyting that you might find out. If anything has been editied or if it is a format thing that might be worth mentioning in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 15:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am writing from the UK. I think it is unlikely that any scenes have been "edited out" as such since the whole point of the film is that it includes the whole play, including the scenes that only exist in either the folio and the second quarto scenes. Maybe the editing is "tighter" in the UK version for some reason (fewer establishing shots or other purely visual material?). However it is clearly 132 minutes. There are also availible sources that state that it is under 4 hours, including the one we use in the main Hamlet article, which is what led to my coming here. I see that it's advertised on Amazon UK at 232 mins and at US Amazon at 242 mins, so for whatever reason there is clearly a difference. Not having seen the US version I can't say whether the difference is in the editing of the film, longer credits or some format factor (though format should surely not affect the DVD speed). I suppose both run-times should be given, though I realise that's a bit clumsy. Paul B 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Paul I was in the process of finishing this edit when you posted yours. I have done a little more searching on this and have found that the UK VHS does indeed have the film listed at 232 minutes (I also found that it is NTSC that I was looking for in my note above) and it is all contained on one tape. So, based on several things, here is my guess as to why this time descrepancy exists.
 * 1) The standard VHS tape holds 2 hrs at normal play - 4 hrs at extended play (often called LP here in the US) and 6 hrs at SLP. This doesn't always hold true as the first tape in the US release of this films has over 2 hrs and 40 mins on it and it plays at SP. In the mid 90's most companies preferred using the factory produced tapes to put films on as it saved on production costs.
 * 2) I know that I will probably be off on the exact numbers but film runs at 24 or 25 frames per second when shown. Most films shown on TV today (cable or regular broadcast channels) show a disclaimer before the film starts that the film has been altered from its original format for television showing. This includes well known things like panning and scanning the picture, editing for language and content and making room for commercials. It can also include speeding the film up to fit a certain time slot. Now this is not the speeding up that would make voices pitch higher and action move hilariously faster. What they actually do is drop out one or two frames per second. This does not interfer with the playing of the film or its storyline, though it does degrade the overall picture and sound quality a fraction. What it does do is allow a two hour film to finish in less than two hours.

Put these together and I have a suspicion that, in order to not have to make a special length tape and to make sure that the films end credits did not get cut off by the tape running out, the UK release of the VHS used the dropping of a frame method to get the entire film on tape. A ten minute reduction in overall running time is easily acheived in a film of this length. The main thing to point out is that using this method means that no scenes will have been cut out to acheive the desired run time for the film.

Unfortunately I can't put my hands on a web based spot to back this up at the moment and, of course, all of this is just my speculation. The first thing that would confirm or refute it is to find out what speed the UK tape plays at when it is viewed. The next thing would be to have a setup where one could run the tape and the DVD at the same time. If one had two TVs for viewing one could check to see that all scenes were still intact and unedited but would be able to notice the tapes action moving ahead of the DVD's over the course of the four hours. Sadly, it looks as though the film has not yet been released on DVD in the region two format (if you have a region free DVD player I can highly recommend that you purchase the region one DVD as it looks wonderful when viewed).

Now as to how to note this in the article. I am open to suggestions as to what to do but I don't think that we can chose just one number and state that as the official runtime. Some mention of the differences between theatrical release (which my research shows to be closer to the 242 than the 232 and was more uniform between the countries) and the various form of home viewing and the differences between countries would seem to need to be described. Let me know what you think and cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just had a chance to read your edit a little closer and here are a few things to be aware of. All of this discussion and all of the sources that we are using are about the VHS and DVD releases. The films runtime in the cinema seems to have been closer to the 242 minutes so I would suggest leaving this number in the infobox. The source used in the main article only gives the name for the book that was used but we can't check what was said in the section of that book that refers to this film. Do you have it and can you check what it says? If a region 2 DVD ever does come out I would think that it would settle things so I will keep my fingers crossed that you get to view it in this format soon. Thanks for the reply and cheers :-) MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The British Board of Film Censorship list the film as 242m 16s (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AFF066551) and the most recent video version as 232m 33s (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/DVF066551), which suggests frames/sec is the difference between the two. These would be the exact times for the versions released in the UK. Lovingboth (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Under-informed contributors degrading page. Please adjudge
1: 'Anything flagged with "Citation needed" for more than four months deserves to be removed, especially if it's wrong"'


 * But it isn't wrong. I repeat: IT ISN'T WRONG. The word 'Attack!' is gratuitously added to Shakespeare's text (in the attempt to justify a 'spectacular' alteration of the play's ending.) What's more, no 'citation' is necessary to demonstrate what anyone with a text and a DVD can verify once it's pointed out to them. One might as well ask for a 'citation' in support of the statement that the film 'makes frequent use of flashbacks to depict elements that are not performed in Shakespeare's text'. Get a grip.

2: 'That "attack" is the ONLY word added by Branagh to a conflated Shakespeare is NOT demonstrable by watching the film, and needs sourcing'


 * Neither I nor anyone else has speculated about who added the word. But the fact is that someone who knows the sources (or has a decent text in front of them...) will spot this as the only added word: to require 'sourcing' of such a thing is ludicrous.


 * Or are you saying that the added word actually has a Shakespearean origin?
 * Or are you unwilling to acknowledge that no film reviewer knew the text well enough to mention the addition?
 * Or do you think you have spotted other words besides?
 * My guess is that you noticed *absolutely nothing* when the word was shouted...

3: 'Sorry, but reverting all this rubbish. In what way is Q2' "questionable status"'


 *  You reveal yourself to have a desperately inadequate knowledge of the sources, as well as distinctly poor reading skills. (Or do you have some kind of agenda? Perhaps you think this is 'your page'....?). I didn't say either F1 or Q2 had 'questionable status'. I merely pointed out, correctly, that there are passages *found in Q2 only* that are considered questionable -- the literature often views these as deleted sections of Shakespeare's 'foul papers' wrongly put into Q2 by the compositors, and more than one scholarly edition relegates these bits to an Appendix. Branagh's version, however, is 'maximalist': it piles everything together, irrespective of the resulting collisions, contradictions, and distensions (I'm not bothered in the least, as it happens; but it ought to be pointed out that he's done it). There are around 230 lines in Q2 only, and the 'How all occasions' speech is one of them.


 * Clearly you know nothing about any of this. You are out of your depth. You are an inept amateur degrading the page. Please stop. Pfistermeister (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * --For the record:---
 * The film is notable as the first unabridged theatrical film version of the play. Its textual approach is in fact 'maximalist', in that it includes material (such as the 'How all occasions do inform against me' speech) that is only present in the Second Quarto version of the text and is thus often regarded as of uncertain status. (In addition, the film also includes, at 3h34m [VHS], a single word - "Attack!" - not present in any Shakespearean source).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfistermeister (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not entering into a debate with a user who describes me and other users as "reveal[ing ourselves] to have a desperately inadequate knowledge of the sources, as well as distinctly poor reading skills... or some kind of agenda". Life is too short, this has already tried my patience far too much, and I'm off on a wikibreak as of today. I'll let others look at this. The relevant issues as regards content are at WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOR, and as regards behaviour at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. AndyJones (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And now you're back and once again trying to delete valuable as well as spotlessly factual material (italicised):
 * The film is notable as the first unabridged theatrical film version of the play. Indeed, Branagh's textual approach is 'maximalist', in that he conflates the Second Quarto and First Folio texts, and therefore includes material (such as the 'How all occasions do inform against me' speech) that is only present in the Second Quarto version and is thus often regarded as of uncertain status. (In addition, the film also includes, a single word - "Attack!" - not present in any Shakespearean source or modern edition).


 * The issue here is easy to define. I have already shown that you have inadequate knowledge of this topic; your accusation that I have somehow contributed OR merely reinforces the impression: anyone who works in this field does not merely know that there are no journalistic sources to cite on this (because the average movie reviewer has no idea what is or isn't part of Shakespeare's text) -- but is also quite aware that there are, equally, no scholarly sources to cite (since there is no lecturer or undergraduate in the world who fails to observe the conflated text or notice the added word. Leave the article alone: you are messing with things you are not competent to mess with, and seeking to deprive the neophyte of important facts. Pfistermeister (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I should add that if sensible persons adjudge that the 'disputed' information is too detailed for the lede, then I will happily construct a separate section for it. But I will not give way to an amateur who merely wants it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfistermeister (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to discuss these issues with you while you continue in this uncivil manner, and I'm not going to attempt to do so. It is your behaviour, not the page content, that is the major issue here. If you continue in this manner you are likely to be blocked. I have reported this issue at AN/I, and I will report all further violations of our civility policy, also. In the meantime, if you want to continue to edit this page, you will need to find a way of constructing your arguments without making personal attacks on other users. AndyJones (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pfistermeister, your attitude towards this page and all other editors is childish, immature, and rude boorish. You do not own the page, nor may you violate core policies at wikipedia, like WP:ATT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. You've also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Do not continue to add your personal theories about the film. You need reliable secondary sourcing for anything you choose to add. Do not continue to attack all other editors of this page as ignorant, or as ruining the page.ThuranX (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have my thoughts about the way *you* edit, too: the difference between us is that *you* do actual damage to pages you *know nothing about*. But for the sake of those I have asked to adjudge, here are a few 'cites' to clarify what you insultingly and cluelessly call 'my personal theories':


 * From Q2:

Ham. 3602: I dare not drinke yet Madam, by and by. Quee. 3603: Come, let me wipe thy face. Laer. 3604: My Lord, Ile hit him now. King. 3605: I doe not think't. Laer. 3606: And yet it is almost against my conscience. Ham. 3607: Come for the third Laertes, you doe but dally. 3608: I pray you passe with your best violence 3609: I am sure you make a wanton of me.


 * from F1:

Ham 3764: I dare not drinke yet Madam, 3765: By and by. Qu 3766: Come, let me wipe thy face. Laer 3767: My Lord, Ile hit him now. King 3768: I do not thinke't. Laer 3769: And yet 'tis almost 'gainst my conscience. Ham 3770: Come for the third. 3771: Laertes, you but dally, 3772: I pray you passe with your best violence, 3773: I am affear'd you make a wanton of me.


 * from Branagh:

Ham: I dare not drink yet, Madam; By and by. Qu: Come, let me wipe thy face. Laer: My Lord, I'll hit him now. King: I do not think it. Laer: And yet 'tis almost 'gainst my conscience. Soldier (or sentry, or whatever): Attack! Ham: Come for the third. Laertes, you but dally, I pray you: pass with your best violence, I am afear'd you make a wanton of me.

Happy now, amateurs...? Pfistermeister (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, a search-engine exists that allows one to ascertain that the word 'attack' *does not appear in any Shakespeare text*. Am I going too fast for anyone here...? Pfistermeister (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reported your further infractions of WP:CIVIL at an/i. The content issues aren't important at this stage. Your behaviour is the issue. AndyJones (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Content *is* the issue. You and your under-informed chums are applying a manifest double standard to my contributions on a page you seem to think is your personal property. Pfistermeister (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you choose to view this in terms of the content, rather than your horrificly rude and insultingly condescending conduct, let's go through the concepts that YOU are too stupid to understand using baby steps.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * Encyclopedias have standards about what information goes in.
 * Wikipedia's standard is that anything that gets included, and which meets with conflict when added, needs proof from a reliable secondary source.
 * Wikipedia also has a policy on how much one editor can fight about getting his version, a policy you have clearly broken on 9 Feb. It has another set of rules about how much, and how long, an editor can keep his head in the sand about the feelings of other editors, especially when the other editors have a consensus to keep unsourced, poorly sourced, and poorly written material off an article page. Yours is all three in spades, and you have violated those concepts as well.
 * You do not have a secondary source for this information, which you can point to, and say "Author X, a known Shakespearean expert, agrees this is a thoroughly maximalist interpretation. Oh, and Branagh committed sacrileges for which he must so obviously die for adding one word."
 * If you can provide sources for the material you want to add, you can add it.
 * Without citation, the opinion you seek to add is just that, your opinion. Its' inclusion would violate WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, more policies which matter here.
 * One final policy for you to read. WP:NPA. It prevents editors from attacking one another using personal insults, rather than actual debate. Examples would be things like 'You and your under-informed chums', "amateurs", and so on. You're condescending and outright childish.


 * I think that covers it all. I suggest that instead of acting so fucking arrogant, you read and get caught up on the policies, and then go do the legwork to find a Shakespeare/Branagh hating expert to back up your opinion. Otherwise, you will find yourself reverted over and over, until you violate 3RR and get blocked, which is, in fact, an option already. ThuranX (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have reported the further WP:NPA breaches and the 3RR violation. AndyJones (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The guidelines for the use of primary sources set out in the No Original Research guideline are as follows: that they 'only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.'
 * It seems to me that the statement that 'Attack!' is an extratextual addition is a descriptive claim, and that any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge could easily verify that with a copy of the play open in his lap and a DVD of the film playing before him. Therefore, the addition of a sentence stating as such would seem to be perfectly valid under Wikipedia's guidelines, reguardless of the nonexistance of a secondary source supporting it. I have done so.
 * Does that satisfy all involved? -Toptomcat (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly satisfies me -- in principle: I haven't yet seen what you have added. My antagonists' objections to my original presentation of that information have astonished everyone to whom I have shown the exchange. My thanks to you for your time and thought. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

70mm
I want to make 2 comments regarding 70mm. First, although release prints are 70mm wide, the camera negative is only 65mm wide. Only the Soviet Union, back in the 1960s, used 70mm camera negative (I don't know why or what film lab was involved). The print is wider to accommodate the magnetic stripes for 6-track sound. Second, this is not the last 70mm film: "Samsara," a follow-up (not really a sequel) to "Baraka (1992)" is currently in production in Panavision Super 70. Described by the filmmakers as a non-traditional documentary, it will likely get a limited theatrical release before going to DVD and Blu-Ray. See www.in70mm.com for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.199.98 (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

'Starring'
One of the problems the audience I saw this with the film is the overuse of 'star actors'. Gérard Depardieu is the example I remember most: he's a spear carrier and the audience groaned when they saw him, because it's jarring. So he's certainly in it, but in no sense does it 'star' him. Can someone who's seen it more recently than I have prune the 'starring' list as necessary? Lovingboth (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Text
I've added a paragraph on the text used. Given that the "full-text" nature of the film is one of its distinguishing features, and the doubts over what "full-text" might actually mean, I've quoted in full the note on the text appended to the screenplay. I've removed the words "Although the dialogue is unchanged in the 1996 Hamlet" from the opening sentence of the third paragraph of the lede, as the screenplay note makes clear that in fact some of the dialogue is changed (following modern editors). In addition, Peter Holland points out that the film introduces an extra "My Lord" for Ophelia that does not appear in any of the Shakespearean sources (Peter Holland, "Film Editing" in Shakespeare Performed: Essays in Honor of R. A. Foakes, ed. Grace Ioppolo (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2000), pp.273-298. Mohntorte (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

hacked?
Looks like someone has messed up the Plot and Roles sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.122.180 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made
I understand your reasoning in this revert: because the article is about Branagh's Hamlet you think it's not necessary to say "Branagh's Hamlet". But the sentence as it stands sounds really strange: "Hamlet has been regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made." There have been at least 17 films named Hamlet. Only one of them (this one) is regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made. The sentence clearly means to say "this remake of Hamlet has been regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made." For readability, that is better expressed as "Branagh's Hamlet". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:FD4D:922A:E501:F0C5 (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)