The main reason that led me to use this film for this study was basically its prestige and good consideration by the critics. I could have taken Laurence Olivier’s version, which won four Oscar prizes, but Kozintsev’s film is said to be the best adaptation of Hamlet. Therefore, as the aim of the paper is to teach Shakespeare through film, I have concentrated on searching for a good version of the tragedy and the languages used were put aside. It could be surprising for some people to teach Shakespeare without the soundtrack being English, but in this case the subtitles become even more important and meaningful.
Kozintsev version of Hamlet (1964) has been highly valued by the critics. It was awarded with the Special Jury Price in Venice Film Festival (1964); and it has been nominated for the BAFTA Awards in 1966, the Golden Globe in 1967, and the Golden Lion in 1964.
The film is divided into two parts, as if they were the two acts of a theatrical representation. The visual image is treated with great mastery and the characteristics of the location are set right from the beginning: the importance of the sea, the consideration of Elsinor as a prison, the powerful characters and their influence over the powerless. The music composed by the Russian musician Shostakovich creates an atmosphere of mystery and secrecy that contributes to the development of the plot.
This film is also referred to as the Soviet Hamlet since the director aims to highlight the possibilities of subverting power. Kozintsev compares Claudius’s exertion of power to Stalin’s government of terror; and other characteristics of Stalin’s government – corruption, the impossibility of individual thoughts – are also present in the film. Kozintsev makes a great adaptation of Shakespeare’s work and, at the same time, he tries to open his audience’s eyes – Russian population – by reflecting their recent past.
One aspect worth mentioning – although it does not affect the subtitles – is the treatment of the monologues. The renowned soliloquies are presented as interior monologues in the film and therefore the inner thoughts can be heard as a voice over. This way of representation minimizes the dramatization but maximizes the realism of the moment.
After doing some research, I have realized that the translator and subtitler into Spanish – Pablo Enrique López Rodríguez – has translated more than one film based on Shakespeare’s texts. For example, he has also translated Kozintev’s version of King Lear (http://www.dschjournal.com/reviews/dvd22op137.htm). It would be interesting to compare both translations and check the faithfulness to the original text; however, that wide purpose may entail another study, completely different from the one here presented.
In general, the language of the subtitles conveys the elegant language Shakespeare used in his texts. Shakespeare’s dialogues were full of contradictions, coordinated sentences and combinations of Latinisms and Anglo-Saxon terms. The translator tries all along the play to recreate this characteristic of the language. Therefore, reading the subtitles, the audience realizes it is not a contemporary play. For instance, the Ghost reveals the King’s murder to Hamlet as follows:
Sí, el más cruel de los asesinatos,
por más injustos y más aleves
que sean los homicidios.
Se esparció la voz de que estando
en mi jardín dormido,
me mordió una serpiente.
Todos los daneses fueron groseramente
engañados con esta fabulosa invención.
Pero debes saber, mancebo generoso
que la serpiente, que mató a tu padre,
hoy ciñe su corona.
These sequences correspond to the Ghost’ words. As it can be seen, the tone of the speech is adequate for the moment and the words recreate the dramatic moment. However, the distribution of the sentences within the subtitles could have been done much clearer and without breaking units of meaning, in order to facilitate the flow of reading.
Despite the appropriate tone of the language, there are some aspects I would like to argue against, related to the translation:
1) Translation of proper names.
2) Translation of the popular monologue “To be or nor to be”.
3) Translation of specific expressions or sayings.
In the whole film there seems to be a tendency to translate the proper names. From the beginning – in the initial credits – it is easily noticed that the author of the tragedy is presented as Guillermo Shakespeare instead of William Shakespeare. Everybody will probably identify that Guillermo means William, it does not pose a problem. However, it can raise some doubts to young learners since the name of the writers can rarely be seen translated – Miguel Cervantes is not Michael Cervantes, nor Karl Marx is Carlos nor Charles Marx.
Therefore, the problem does not lie in a bad translation but rather, I would say, in a confusing or inappropriate translation. The term used in Spanish is the equivalent, yet the translation is unnecessary since it does not reveal any hidden information.
The same line of argument might be used to comment on the translation of the characters’ names. In the film, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are presented as Ricardo and Guillermo respectively. From my point of view, this translation implies an excessive localization, which can hardly be seen in any other translation of Shakespeare’s work in texts translated in the Contemporary Era. The names of the rest of the characters have been kept similar to the original, despite some recognizable variations, which are carried out in nearly all the translations. It is true, though, that these two names – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern – present more difficulties for the Spanish audience in order to read them, since the way the word is written does not seem to match any Spanish words. Another argument that may defend the translator’s choice is that the words “Ricardo” and “Guillermo” are much shorter than their equivalent words in English, and therefore using these words allows more space in the subtitles to include important information the dialogues may contain.
Despite these arguments in favour of the translator’s option, the localization carried out in the translation of these names is excessive and it might distract the audience’s attention from other meaningful features on the film.
The second item to highlight is the translation of the well-known monologue “To be or not to be”. Contrary to any expectation, the so famous first verse “Ser o no ser”, has been translated as “Existir o no existir”. It seems that the translator pretended to break with any previous topic or demystify the so often recalled verse. Again, this is not a case of bad translation, but rather it is a matter of breaking the audience’s expectations. The reasons for this choice are unknown to us. Maybe it was the translator’s aim to break with what was expected; or maybe he considered that to be a most appropriate translation.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the translation of one particular sentence. After Ophelia’s funeral, Hamlet has a discussion with Laertes, Ophelia’s brother, telling him how much he loved Ophelia and that no-one else could have ever loved her as much as he did. This discussion is held in a courtly language yet Hamlet lets his feelings show and his discourse combines passion, grief and yearning for revenge. However, Shakespeare is in the habit of mixing the tone in his dialogues and he is able to insert a common saying in between a courtly language. This practice keeps the translator’s in alert, since the original tone should be maintained. An example of this common practice can be found in the scene describe above. Hamlet – concluding his speech act – can be read to say “la cabra siempre tira al monte”. At a first glance, this translation caught my attention and I decided to investigate the reason for such a surprise. The original version in English says “The cat will mew and dog will have his day”, meaning that “any given person's moment of glory is inevitable” (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=973515). However, the use of a very common saying in Spanish changes the original meaning. It might have been better not using a saying but keeping the meaning, yet it could also be arguable, then, that the versatility of Shakespeare’s language is not conveyed.
© Teresa Agost Porcar. 2007.
teapor@alumni.uv.es