Talk:Hamlet on screen

Confusing sentence in opening
I'm sure this doesn't mean what it says:
 * Zeffirelli's version can be viewed, as much as anything as "a Mel Gibson film".

That's not viewing according to auteur theory, but rather as a kind of genre criticism. I don't think anyone would argue that it's Gibson's creative vision that dominates the creation of the film, would they? DionysosProteus 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Keyishian does say what that sentence says: although I'd agree the juxtaposition with the sentence about auteur theory gives a misleading impression. I'll rethink. AndyJones 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it was the juxtaposition; new version is much clearer. DionysosProteus 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tables
This article is looking good and could seriously become a GA the way it's going! The biggest problem is the lists at the bottom, but if they were made into a table, I think it would improve the article and give it some class. This might be a good project after Hamlet is done. Wrad 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I don't share your aversion to lists, nor your enthusiasm for tables and templates. However I've had a go at what that might look like, here, and if you think that's a definite improvement I'm happy to reorganise in that way. AndyJones 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To stick my oar in, my first impression is that the lists are easier on the eye; the table just seems so big. If they're an obstacle to better status, another alternative to consider might be to separate them out as separate list-only articles? Or would that defeat the purpose of the article in the first place? DionysosProteus 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sample table is the best example. Let me show you a sample later on that will knock your socks off and then decide. Wrad 14:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for sources
Contrary to my recent edit summary, I do in fact think a few more things are needed in the prose section of this page before I regard it as "complete" (not perfect or finished, of course, just complete) and those are:
 * 1) More on the Hawke Hamlet. My sources say little or nothing about it.
 * 2) At least a sentence on each of Richard Chamberlain's and Kevin Kline's performances.
 * 3) A few sentences on the Lion King/Hamlet connection.

Does anyone know of any good sources - not necessarily too detailed - on those subjects? AndyJones 12:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?
There is very interesting information here about the cutting and interpretations made in these films. But when you go to the article on the film itself, they are often barren and empty wastelands! Wouldn't it be better to make this article simply a list of films preceded by material on Hamlet films in general, and shift the individual analyses to their appropriate articles, to make those articles better? The Drama Llama 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to understand all of the Hamlet pieces as works in progress at the moment. While further work on the individual films is desirable, so too is an overview. There is also scope for critical comparisons that have been made, tracing trends, contrasts etc. in interpretations. The material is developing outwards from the main Hamlet article, i think. DionysosProteus 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Scholars very frequently use film overviews like this one in analyses. It gives the reader an idea of how Hamlet has been portrayed in film over the years, rather than having to look at one film at a time. There are hundreds of books and articles which talk about Hamlet on screen as a whole, rather than just discussing one film. Wikipedia needs to follow suit if it wants to adequately cover the Bard. Whatever the state of the individual articles might be, this article is an incredible resource as it is, and is going to get better in time. I think it would be an excellent idea, though, to copy some of this info into the separate film articles. Wrad 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not much to add to Proteus and Wrad. I'm the user who's done most work on the Shakespeare on screen-related stuff, and this layout is by far the best I've tried so far. I think the length here is about right, and that anything more should go on the individual pages. I've no objection to copying some of this page to there, though. I considered doing so myself, because when I wrote this page I was a bit dismayed how little sourced material there was on the individual pages for me to carry across. AndyJones 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing the material, this is great work. Maybe I'll copy some of the material into the individual articles and try developing them a bit. The Drama Llama 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wrad 14:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

{cn} and {specify} tags
I'm on a wikibreak as of today. Just to be clear, by adding so many {cn}s and {specify}s to the page I wasn't criticising its sourcing, nor actually challenging the statements, nor demanding that someone else do the sourcing. I was merely marking-up.

On my return I'm fully confident I can fill the vast bulk of these. (I've got a few good books on Shakespeare films which I'm looking forward to reading while I'm away...) AndyJones (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Page move
Pending further discussion, I've moved the page back to Hamlet on screen. The original move rationale here says "moved Hamlet on screen to Hamlet in film: avoid euphemism which may not be familiar to all audiences". I assume it doesn't really mean "euphemism", but to me the "...in film" title has the same problem that I imagine the mover identified in "...on screen", namely it sounds ungrammatical and idiomatic. Speaking as a Brit, it would have to be "Hamlet on film" not "...in film". Also, "..screen" was chosen, back in 2005, as the title for this family of articles because they are about TV and film, not just film (which, here in Britain at least, has a connotation of "big screen"). Bearing in mind that the move would affect all members of the family, not just this one article, I'd like some more input to achieve a consensus. I'll make a cross-posting at the Shakespeare Wikiproject, to canvass views, there. AndyJones (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm American, but "on Film" sounds better than "in Film". However, I'd prefer "Screen" because "on Film" seems to reference actual, physical film. It's a bit too technical sounding.Bardofcornish (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep the original "on screen" title. Wrad (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mystery Science Theatre 3000
I'm really confused by this source: http://www.mst3kinfo.com/daddyo/di_1009.html. It's on the mst3k website, but that's the only connection I can see between mst3k and the Schell/Gade production. That page itself certainly doesn't source the statements the footnote is tagged onto the end of. Can someone explain to me what this is about? Is this really notable enough to be here? If yes, can anyone provide a proper real-world source? AndyJones (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet 2?
I believe it should be mentioned, on account of the fact that, while it's not serious, it's still a parody of Hamlet. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely approve of adding it to the list of screen adaptations. Note that this is a heavily sourced article, though, so I'd only approve any additions to the prose sections if they were well-sourced. We have no idea yet whether the film will make a lasting impact. AndyJones (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Smoktun.jpg
The image Image:Smoktun.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Last Action Hero.
Re removal of Last Action Hero, the section's intro says "This list includes adaptations of the Hamlet story, and films in which the characters are involved in acting or studying Hamlet." The kid is watching Laurence Olivier's performance in school, and the character Slater is acting as Hamlet. You can see the truncated scenes at .-- Jeandré, 2009-02-19t11:50z
 * Sounds a bit trivial to me. Have you got an academic source? AndyJones (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The now-infamous parody of Laurence Olivier's Hamlet in Last Action Hero, for example, in which Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Hamlet as a gun-toting" - Lanier, Douglas (2002) "Shakescorp Noir" Shakespeare Quarterly - Volume 53, Number 2.
 * "Ultimately, however, it was Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1992 film, The Last Action Hero (dir. John McTiernan), that most clearly allegorized the transformation of Hamlet from melancholy man into an image that could be valued by the young male consumers to whom the newly technologized violence of the 1990s was being played." - Boose, Lynda E.; Richard Burt (1997) Shakespeare, the Movie: Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, and Video p. 9
 * "The Last Action Hero shares with almost all the other works considered in this chapter a presumption that Hamlet is, in some sense, obsolete." - Halpern, Richard (1997) Shakespeare Among the Moderns, Cornell University Press, p. 277
 * Mallin, Eric S. ""You Kilt my Foddah": or Arnold, Prince of Denmark." Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 50, No. 2. Summer 1999.
 * -- Jeandré, 2009-02-19t21:55z


 * There is so little about TLAH that has anything to do with Hamlet that I did not feel that its inclusion was notable. However, Jeandré du Toit's research is to be complemented. If people who take care of this page like AndyJones feel that it should be included then it is okay with me. Now if we could just include the musical version entitled "The Producer" that I first saw in 1966 on Gilligan's Island ;-) (Just Kidding) To this day I remember the lyrics to a couple of the songs from this episode and I think it was a better effort at creating a Hamlet musical then Hamlet 2 is in many ways. Again, I appreciate your research Jeandré. MarnetteD | Talk 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Sources enough there to warrant its inclusion: good work. I've found references in some of my books, here, also. Be sure to reflect the sources' comments when you add this to the page, and cite the specific source[s] you choose using tags. AndyJones (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDB links
In light of the most recent edit ("IMDB is not accepted as a source per WP:RS. Better to leave these items unsourced until we find academic sourcing."), shouldn't the other eleven existing references to IMDB have been removed as well? JiveTalkinChoirBoy (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical of imprisonment assertion
The "Grigori Kozintsev, 1964" section says that Boris Pasternak and Innokenty Smoktunovsky were imprisoned by Stalin. A footnote refers the reader to page 120 of J. Lawrence Guntner's article Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear on film in The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film (edited by Russell Jackson, Cambridge University Press, 2000). However, I find no corroboration that the USSR ever imprisoned them in the Boris Pasternak or Innokenty Smoktunovsky Wikipedia articles, or in other biographical webpages. Wideangle (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just seen this posting from last year, and I've just checked the source, Guntner, which says exactly what the text of the article says it says. I don't think this is worth following up on the basis of what Wikipedia says about anything. Guntner is a WP:RS so a change should only be considered if there's another WP:RS which contradicts it. AndyJones (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)