Document Type : Research article
Author
Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Abstract
Ophelia in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet (2004) is a potent discursive site whose interpretive and critical valences have been salvaged through various adaptations of this play. Through the utilization of critical insights of critics, such as Jacques Lacan (1977), Elaine Showalter (1985), and commentators like David Leverenz (2004), Bridget Gellert Lyons (1977), and Philip Armstrong (1996), the study identifies Ophelia’s schizophrenic characterization, her reminiscences of the past, and her representation through the play’s iconographic values as the negotiable features for taping into Ophelia’s multi-layered characterization. The study chooses Laurence Olivier’s adaptation (1948) as the more theatrical rendition of the play next to two more modernized and experimental adaptations done by Michael Almereyda (2000) and Kenneth Branagh (1996) to discuss its identification of these discursively potent features in Ophelia’s adapted renditions. While utilizing its main critical insights, the study would also use the interpretive readings of commentators, such as Amanda Rooks (2014), Jessica Maerz (2011) and Gulsen Teker (2006) on the cinematic and literary significance of each of the selected adaptations in the continuum of the adaptations done on Hamlet. In the study, it would be argued that although none of the adaptations could deny the patriarchal dominance over Ophelia, the more experimental ones by Branagh and especially Almereyda do manage to tap into the ambivalent points of resistance which Ophelia’s characterization could create against this dominance. These ambivalent points expose the incomplete nature of strategies which are adopted by the patriarchy in containing and othering figures such as Ophelia.
Keywords
Main Subjects
- Abbate, A. (2004). To be or inter-be: Almereyda’s end-of-millennium Hamlet. Literature/Film Quarterly, 32(2), 82-89. https://www.proquest.com/openview
- Almereyda, M. (Director). (2000). Hamlet [Film]. Miramax.
- Armstrong, P. (1996). Watching Hamlet watching: Lacan, Shakespeare and the mirror/stage. In Terence Hawkes (Ed.), Alternative Shakespeare (pp. 217-238). Routledge.
- Branagh, K. (Director). (1996). Hamlet [Film]. Sony Pictures.
- Lacan, J. (1977). Desire and the interpretation of desire in Hamlet. Yale French Studies, (55/56), 11-52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930434
- Lane, R.L. (2006). Fifty key literary theorists. Routledge.
- Leverenz, D. (2004). The women in Hamlet: An interpersonal view. In Smith (Ed.), Shakespeare’s tragedies (122-140). Blackwell Publishing.
- Lyons, B. G. (1977). The iconography of Ophelia. ELH, 44(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2872526
- Maerz, J. M. (2011). Beyond epic: Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet and the meta-narrative functions of classical Hollywood genre. Literature/Film Quarterly, 39(2), 128-140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43798781
- Morris, H. (1958). Ophelia’s bonny sweet robin. PMLA, 73(5), 601-603. https://doi.org/10.2307/460304
- Olivier, L. (Director). (1948). Hamlet [Film]. Rank Film Distribution Ltd.
- Rooks, A.K. (2014). The new Ophelia in Michael Almereyda’s Hamlet. Literature/Film Quarterly, 42(2), 475-485. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43798981
- Sanders, J. (2006). Adaptation and appropriation. Routledge.
- Shakespeare, W. (2004). The tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Grandview: thewriteedition.net Publishing.
- Showalter, E. (1985). Representing Ophelia: Women, madness, and the responsibilities of feminist criticism. In P.Parker & G. Hartman (Eds.), Shakespeare and the question of theory (77-94.Methuen & Co. Ltd.
- Teker, G. S. (2006). Empowered by madness: Ophelia in the films of Kozintsev, Zeffirelli, and Branagh. Literature/Film Quarterly, 34(2), 113-119. https://www.proquest.com/docview/227001101
- Wolfrey, J., Robbins, R., & Womack, K. (2002). Key concepts in literary theory. Edinburgh University Press.
)