A bit about Hamlet
When I was talking the other day about the controlling canon of a story, how there's really one version of a story that, in a lot of ways, controls how the story travels, is retold and changes, two really big misconceptions popped up. The first is that any of this has anything to do with an individual's preferred version of the story -- I might think that, say, whereas the Siegal & Shuster version of the Superman is the original, the current main continuity comic book is the controlling version and, I don't know, maybe Smallville is the popular version (or, let's just say the Christopher Reeves movies, for sanity's sake. But it's really probably Smallville.) But there are a million other renditions of them, many of which I prefer to any of these, particularly cool, offbeat versions like the Superman: Red Son comic. But preference doesn't have anything to do with it. Secondly, just because a version of a story isn't the controlling version, or even the popular version, doesn't make it not a valid interpretation of the story. Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is an influential book, and an awesome one, at that, but it's probably not the version of the story that any informed Bat-aficionado would think of as the "real" version. Doesn't make it any less valid an interpretation, or detract at all from its quality.
And really, this happens mostly with stories that permeate. Some stories travel over time and stay mostly intact, with only minor differences in the way the story's told. Take Hamlet, for example. There were older versions of Hamlet before Shakespeare -- there's a legend that was recorded in the 13th century by the historian Saxo Grammaticus (yes, I totally had to look that name up again) and even an alleged earlier Elizabethan play on the same subject, which no one really knows much about. Whatever original version exists of that story, it's for all intents and purposes lost. But Shakespeare's Hamlet has been the controlling version for centuries, with a consistent text to follow the story from all the way through.
No one really messes much with Hamlet's plot. Oh, it goes through all sorts of odd tribulations, getting set on a spaceship or during the Roaring '20s or whatever, but basically, Hamlet always stays Hamlet. But the interpretations, of which there have been many, have brought us a seemingly unending cascade of Hamlets. Of course, we have really no idea how Richard Burbage's original portrayal went down, but film renditions and taped stagings have given us all sorts of versions to compare. Lawrence Olivier's probably the most famous version, one which suffered great criticism for cutting out the political elements of the play, which, personally, I feel give it its shape an urgency. (But hey, as I've said before, some details are more important than others.) You see that a lot, though. Kevin Branaugh gave us a more stately an persuasive (if somewhat hammy) version, and Mel Gibson brought a sort of visceral energy to the role, making him a man of action trapped by inaction, which I actually think is more clever than he usually gets credit for. Personally, I'm very fond of the recent David Tennant version, but I don't know if that would qualify as the rendition that's either most lodged in the public consciousness at the moment, or indeed, would be one that's considered the most iconic. I think those distinctions would need to be earned over time, at least absent a mass media push that accelerates the whole process.
But no, Oliver's is probably still the iconic version, the rendition that shapes all other versions after it. It may even still be the most popular one. But really, the differences between versions of Hamlet are just shadings. You go too far, and it becomes something else entirely. If we're lucky, it becomes Hamlet 2, complete with "Rock Me Sexy Jesus." Otherwise, it's just something that would be Hamlet only in name, like the Halle Berry Catwoman movie was. Like I mostly fear the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer film will be.
This is not to equate Buffy with Hamlet. Indeed, it's a mark of Hamlet's power that it can travel centuries without suffering too much indignities or variations, excepting novelties such as the aforementioned (and very fun) Hamlet 2 and the comic book Kill Shakespeare (which I've not actually read yet, but hear good things about.) No, Buffy is a new myth, and as such, is probably actually more vulnerable to being batted around and reshaped than something like Hamlet, which everyone has a notion about. Hamlet is ingrained in the culture, whereas Buffy, which is certainly culturally relevant, is still, to the majority of the corporate forces involved in her fictional existence, just a brand.
And really, this happens mostly with stories that permeate. Some stories travel over time and stay mostly intact, with only minor differences in the way the story's told. Take Hamlet, for example. There were older versions of Hamlet before Shakespeare -- there's a legend that was recorded in the 13th century by the historian Saxo Grammaticus (yes, I totally had to look that name up again) and even an alleged earlier Elizabethan play on the same subject, which no one really knows much about. Whatever original version exists of that story, it's for all intents and purposes lost. But Shakespeare's Hamlet has been the controlling version for centuries, with a consistent text to follow the story from all the way through.
No one really messes much with Hamlet's plot. Oh, it goes through all sorts of odd tribulations, getting set on a spaceship or during the Roaring '20s or whatever, but basically, Hamlet always stays Hamlet. But the interpretations, of which there have been many, have brought us a seemingly unending cascade of Hamlets. Of course, we have really no idea how Richard Burbage's original portrayal went down, but film renditions and taped stagings have given us all sorts of versions to compare. Lawrence Olivier's probably the most famous version, one which suffered great criticism for cutting out the political elements of the play, which, personally, I feel give it its shape an urgency. (But hey, as I've said before, some details are more important than others.) You see that a lot, though. Kevin Branaugh gave us a more stately an persuasive (if somewhat hammy) version, and Mel Gibson brought a sort of visceral energy to the role, making him a man of action trapped by inaction, which I actually think is more clever than he usually gets credit for. Personally, I'm very fond of the recent David Tennant version, but I don't know if that would qualify as the rendition that's either most lodged in the public consciousness at the moment, or indeed, would be one that's considered the most iconic. I think those distinctions would need to be earned over time, at least absent a mass media push that accelerates the whole process.
But no, Oliver's is probably still the iconic version, the rendition that shapes all other versions after it. It may even still be the most popular one. But really, the differences between versions of Hamlet are just shadings. You go too far, and it becomes something else entirely. If we're lucky, it becomes Hamlet 2, complete with "Rock Me Sexy Jesus." Otherwise, it's just something that would be Hamlet only in name, like the Halle Berry Catwoman movie was. Like I mostly fear the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer film will be.
This is not to equate Buffy with Hamlet. Indeed, it's a mark of Hamlet's power that it can travel centuries without suffering too much indignities or variations, excepting novelties such as the aforementioned (and very fun) Hamlet 2 and the comic book Kill Shakespeare (which I've not actually read yet, but hear good things about.) No, Buffy is a new myth, and as such, is probably actually more vulnerable to being batted around and reshaped than something like Hamlet, which everyone has a notion about. Hamlet is ingrained in the culture, whereas Buffy, which is certainly culturally relevant, is still, to the majority of the corporate forces involved in her fictional existence, just a brand.
No comments have been added yet.
