The link to the adaptation: https://globalshakespeares.mit.edu/hamlet-yang-jung-ung-2009/

If we look at the script on superficial level we can see the same archetypes - Simba is the prince with huge responsibility on his shoulders that questions livelihood. Scar is the power obsessed uncle who is not afraid to get himself dirty to get what he wants. However at the closer inspection we can see small differences in the character arc's. My guess is again it was adapted towards kid audience therefore one could argue that The lion king is overly simplified version and I would agree. Nevertheless it carries Shakespeare legacy and is extends its interpretation of original work and possible ways of development.

My questions would be:

is it possible to keep the essence of the original play in adaptations like the lion king where a lot of details and parts are changed?

can it be counted as adaptation if the story seems completely different?

do you think this interpretation of the original has a right to exist in the context of the original?

In Akimov’s conception, Hamlet was no philosopher. Played by Anatoly Goryunov, an actor mostly known as a comedian, he was a chubby, short, witty bon-vivant, a young man fighting for his right to be the King of Denmark. Thus the plot was emptied of its usual enigmas and instead focused on one main intrigue: the struggle for the Danish throne... Acting as Hamlet’s double, Horatio joined him in the “To be or not to be” soliloquy, turning it into a dialogue, in the course of which Hamlet tried on a papier-mâché crown left over from the actors’ rehearsal. The iconic Ghost scene was completely reinterpreted. Inspired by Erasmus’s Colloquies, Akimov evoked a masquerade, where Hamlet pretends to be the ghost and Horatio helps him by making spooky noises with the help of a clay pot, by which means the two men try to attract more supporters for their cause. The dialogue between Hamlet and his father’s ghost was hence turned into a monologue for Hamlet, in what is effectively a mirror image of Akimov’s treatment of “To be or not to be”.

The character of Ophelia also underwent considerable transformation...Akimov’s Ophelia was a femme fatale who knew how to enjoy life. According to him there was no real love between her and Hamlet, and her main function was to spy on Hamlet and to report back to Polonius. ... Ophelia gets drunk at the court ball and drowns accidentally. For his part, Hamlet is only pretending to be mad, and he does so, for example, by wearing a saucepan on his head, holding carrots in his hand, and chasing boys and piglets in his nightshirt.

But what interested me more about the play was not these changes, but rather Akimov’s perception of his own work and his goals as an artist: “the goal of any production of Hamlet in our days is to liberate it from such prisons.” Akimov critiqued Hamletism as a very heavy and philosophically charged state, noting the constant changes in the play’s stagings to match the dominant ideology of the time. Akimov, on the other hand, was trying to stage the work as a realistic depiction of the lives of real “living people of the 16th century.” For me, this beautifully connects with the idea of the cultural field, and how every new production is necessarily influenced by all previous interpretations, leading to the displacement of them. So, however hard Akimov tries to “liberate” and “break free,” it is an almost impossible task—not only can it not break free from previous adaptations, but also from Shakespeare’s authority (connecting it with Zhenya’s question). Akimov, though, does not accept this directly, but he says something very interesting in this regard: “he predicted that Hamletism and its attendant mysticism and other ‘falsifications’ were by then so deeply rooted in the audience’s subconscious that his more authentic Hamlet would paradoxically appear ‘false.’” And justly enough, after the field reaches a certain thickness, the discussion about the True and False (in a sense of what Shakespeare truly meant or how and who were the characterters "in reality") becomes somewhat irrelevant and eventually ridiculous.

In Akimov’s conception, Hamlet was no philosopher. Played by Anatoly Goryunov, an actor mostly known as a comedian, he was a chubby, short, witty bon-vivant, a young man fighting for his right to be the King of Denmark. Thus the plot was emptied of its usual enigmas and instead focused on one main intrigue: the struggle for the Danish throne... Acting as Hamlet’s double, Horatio joined him in the “To be or not to be” soliloquy, turning it into a dialogue, in the course of which Hamlet tried on a papier-mâché crown left over from the actors’ rehearsal. The iconic Ghost scene was completely reinterpreted. Inspired by Erasmus’s Colloquies, Akimov evoked a masquerade, where Hamlet pretends to be the ghost and Horatio helps him by making spooky noises with the help of a clay pot, by which means the two men try to attract more supporters for their cause. The dialogue between Hamlet and his father’s ghost was hence turned into a monologue for Hamlet, in what is effectively a mirror image of Akimov’s treatment of “To be or not to be”.

The character of Ophelia also underwent considerable transformation...Akimov’s Ophelia was a femme fatale who knew how to enjoy life. According to him there was no real love between her and Hamlet, and her main function was to spy on Hamlet and to report back to Polonius. ... Ophelia gets drunk at the court ball and drowns accidentally. For his part, Hamlet is only pretending to be mad, and he does so, for example, by wearing a saucepan on his head, holding carrots in his hand, and chasing boys and piglets in his nightshirt.

But what interested me more about the play was not these changes, but rather Akimov’s perception of his own work and his goals as an artist: “the goal of any production of Hamlet in our days is to liberate it from such prisons.” Akimov critiqued Hamletism as a very heavy and philosophically charged state, noting the constant changes in the play’s stagings to match the dominant ideology of the time. Akimov, on the other hand, was trying to stage the work as a realistic depiction of the lives of real “living people of the 16th century.” For me, this beautifully connects with the idea of the cultural field, and how every new production is necessarily influenced by all previous interpretations, leading to the displacement of them. So, however hard Akimov tries to “liberate” and “break free,” it is an almost impossible task—not only can it not break free from previous adaptations, but also from Shakespeare’s authority (connecting it with Zhenya’s question). Akimov, though, does not accept this directly, but he says something very interesting in this regard: “he predicted that Hamletism and its attendant mysticism and other ‘falsifications’ were by then so deeply rooted in the audience’s subconscious that his more authentic Hamlet would paradoxically appear ‘false.’” And justly so, since once the cultural field of the work reaches a certain thickness, discussions about True and False (in a sense of what did Shakespeare really mean or how and who were the characters "in reality") become irrelevant and eventually ridiculous.

One noteworthy aspect is the incorporation of Turkish folk/traditional music, which creates an atmosphere of being in Turkey and underscores their cultural characteristics, though the play was performed in the US. There is a funny scene too where Hamlet delivers his popular soliloquy of "to be or not to be" in English, and out of the sudden a hand appears and the voice speaks something in Turkish. Hamlet is unable to understand the meaning and forbids speaking in Turkish. This snippet indicates the widespreadness and dominance of English through Shakespearean performances.

As for the title of the play, I cannot identify something precisely owing to not knowing the whole adaptation. However, I infer that, as it is staged through shadow theatre, it seems surreal, turning it into an illusion or dream, and whatever is shown is somewhat disconnected from reality.

"How does this version of Shakespeare show the culture it comes from, and what does that say about whether Shakespeare is "universal" or not?"

To answer Alina's question posed from the heurisitc, I can certainly state that the use of Anatolian shadow theatre, Turkish music, and the portrayal of characters "Turkishly" that is similar to people living in the Ottoman Empire or even Turkey, accentuates the origin of the play and spreads awareness about Turkish culture. However, renunciation of the Turkish language in favor of English undergirds Shakespeare’s universality and the enduring desire to be understood universally and not just locally.

The link to the play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAXVX-HFSa4

One noteworthy aspect is the incorporation of Turkish folk/traditional music, which creates an atmosphere of being in Turkey and underscores their cultural characteristics, though the play was performed in the US. There is a funny scene too where Hamlet delivers his popular soliloquy of "to be or not to be" in English, and out of the sudden a hand appears and the voice speaks something in Turkish. Hamlet is unable to understand the meaning and forbids speaking in Turkish. This snippet indicates the widespreadness and dominance of English through Shakespearean performances.

As for the title of the play, I cannot identify something precisely owing to not knowing the whole adaptation. However, I infer that, as it is staged through shadow theatre, it seems surreal, turning it into an illusion or dream, and whatever is shown is somewhat disconnected from reality.

"How does this version of Shakespeare show the culture it comes from, and what does that say about whether Shakespeare is "universal" or not?"

To answer Alina's question, I can certainly state that the use of Anatolian shadow theatre, Turkish music, and the portrayal of characters "Turkishly" that is similar to people living in the Ottoman Empire or even Turkey, accentuates the origin of the play and spreads awareness about Turkish culture. However, renunciation of the Turkish language in favor of English undergirds Shakespeare’s universality and the enduring desire to be understood universally and not just locally.

The link to the play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAXVX-HFSa4

Our question
What happens to our understanding of Hamlet’s struggle with mortality and revenge when it is staged through ritualized performance rather than psychological realism?

Here’s a description of the Japanese production (it's really interesting and fun!!)- https://spac.or.jp/en/au2020-sp2021/hamlet_2020

Played by Daisy Ridley, Ophelia becomes the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting after being brought into the castle by the Queen herself, which makes her a key figure at court and an active participant in the unfolding events. Her connection with the Queen is one of the strongest relationships in the movie. Despite the challenges of the plot, the bond between the two women remains unshaken as they fight to protect the most important man in their lives—Hamlet. This gives the film a distinctly woman-centered and feminist approach.

The plot revolves primarily around Hamlet and Ophelia, lending it a Romeo and Juliet–style romance. Instead of focusing on Hamlet’s existential crisis and inner struggles, the film emphasizes Ophelia’s attempts to preserve their love. The ending departs dramatically from Shakespeare’s original: (spoiler alert) Ophelia does not go mad; she survives and retreats to a nunnery with her and Hamlet’s daughter.

Although Ophelia may not be the strongest adaptation of Hamlet, it offers a refreshing perspective by reimagining the classic tragedy through a woman’s eyes.

Another reason is that it was interesting how such a short excerpt from a famous animated show would depict Shakespeare's Hamlet to make it accessible for the audience without distorting the main ideas and the plot. We were also wondering if and how would the plot change to adapt to the lens and audience of a TV show that had existed long before this episode.

The most vivid difference we noticed was how the plot was centered around revenge, omitting different social and philosophical aspects of the play. However, for a very short rendition that simplifies and molds the play into a sarcastic and audience-oriented piece, it was done with great precision and even respect to the original.

The two characters' responses, however, diverge greatly. Hamlet is hesitant, too analytical, and depressed. When Hamlet's father's ghost orders him to exact revenge, he finds himself stuck inBoth King Hamlet in Shakespeare's play and Mufasa in The Lion King start with the same plot point: a decent and well-respected king passes away. The uncle, Claudius in Hamlet and Scar in The Lion King, seizes control by treachery in both situations. Simba or Hamlet, the young prince, must deal with the death of his father and choose whether to take action against the uncle who has usurped the throne.

The two characters' responses, however, diverge greatly. Hamlet is hesitant, too analytical, and depressed. I selected The Lion King because it retells Hamlet with a different message and emotions while maintaining the primary plot. Both King Hamlet in Shakespeare's play and Mufasa in The Lion King start with the same plot point: a decent and well-respected king passes away. The uncle, Claudius in Hamlet and Scar in The Lion King, seizes control by treachery in both situations. Simba or Hamlet, the young prince, must deal with the death of his father and choose whether to take action against the uncle who has usurped the throne.

The two characters' responses, however, diverge greatly. Hamlet is hesitant, too analytical, and depressed. I selected The Lion King because it retells Hamlet with a different message and emotions while maintaining the primary plot.

This adaptation basically uses the famous setting of the American West to make the characters more relatable to the audience. It's a mix that may seem impossible to make work, but we think that the director pulled it off pretty well.

Some questions that we will consider are:

1. How do the adaptations use local problems, traditions, and historical events to make Shakespeare’s characters more relatable to themselves?

2. How does this adaptation negotiate between globalized, “standardized” Shakespeare and the distinct cultural or historical identity of its local context?

3. How much can the local adapter of Shakespeare (be it a theatre director, filmmaker, the actors…) change and modify the work for it to be considered Shakespeare, and where do we draw the line of ‘Shakespeare’ and ‘not Shakespeare anymore’?

How did the Soviet regime impact the adaptation?

How do different local adaptations influence the Shakespeare brand for their audiences?

How can the different backgrounds of audiences have an impact on how they understand and interpret the works, and does localization solve the issue?

Our group chose the Soviet film adaptation of Hamlet made in 1964. Before starting his work on Hamlet, director Grigori Kozintsev studied Shakespeare’s works for many years. It was the 17th screen adaptation of the great tragedy, and the very first in Russian. Kozintsev first staged Hamlet in the theater, and only later came up with the idea of bringing the classic tragedy to the screen. The production took eight years. Kozintsev deliberately made the film black-and-white: bright colors would not have suited the dramaticity and philosophical depth that he envisioned for his picture. The score for the film was written by Dmitri Shostakovich. He had also composed the music for the stage production, and Kozintsev assumed that Shostakovich would only slightly re-orchestrate it. But Shostakovich categorically declared that he would not take a single note from the earlier music and instead composed the entire score anew, making it completely different. 

We would also like to mention a few differences from the play that stand out in the film:

The language in Russian is just as sophisticated as the original, but it is simplified to make it understandable. For example, in a few cases in which Shakespeare used “Mark me” as in “Listen to me,” in Russian it transformed into “Follow my thought,” and “Be attentive.”

Hamlet’s soliloquies are not recited “out loud,” but are rather turned into inner monologues. In film, performing a soliloquy could be strange and unnatural because film mimics real life more closely than theatre. But when “to be or not to be” is an inner monologue, the viewer takes Hamlet more seriously.

Ophelia returns a ring instead of letters, not to lose the seriousness of the relationship in the Soviet context.

These and many other small details impact the overall tone of the film.

What fascinated us about this adaptation is how Kurosawa translates the court of Elsinore into Japan's corporate world, where business suits replace royal robes and boardroom politics substitute for palace intrigue. The protagonist, Nishi, infiltrates a corrupt construction company by marrying the boss's daughter - a brilliant modern twist on Hamlet's position within the Danish court. Instead of a literal ghost, we have the haunting memory of a father driven to suicide by corporate corruption. The famous "play within a play" becomes an elaborate wedding reception scheme designed to expose guilt.

Kurosawa maintains the psychological complexity of Shakespeare's original while grounding it in very real contemporary Japanese issues - corporate corruption, post-war reconstruction, and social inequality. The film feels both timeless and urgently modern, showing how power corrupts across centuries and cultures.

The Question:

How does transforming Hamlet's royal revenge into corporate espionage change our understanding of justice and moral corruption, and what does this reveal about power structures in modern society versus feudal courts?

Production link: https://archive.org/details/the-bad-sleep-well

Another reason is that it was interesting how such a short excerpt from a famous animated show would depict Shakespeare's Hamlet to make it accessible for the audience without distorting the main ideas and the plot. We were also wondering if and how would the plot change to adapt to the lens and audience of a TV show that had existed long before this episode.

The most vivid difference we noticed was how the plot was centered around revenge, omitting different social and philosophical aspects of the play. However, for a very short rendition that simplifies and molds the play into a sarcastic and audience-oriented piece, it was done with great precision and even respect to the original.