Baz Luhrmann’s movies are known for their unorthodox visuals and creatively inserted music into the scene. Recently, he received some negative responses from his movie adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby. His movie adaptation was considered unfaithful to the original text or story, despite using most of the same text and action. Luhrmann’s movie adaptation modified the original text in a distinct way, especially through the hyperbolic representation of Jay Gatsby’s parties and the choice of modern soundtrack. The movie didn’t quite touched the viewers as well as the original novel did, it only skimmed through the scenes and focused more on the “party” section that was mentioned in the novel.
Expectedly, the two films have entirely dissimilar openings. The Zefferelli version commences with two scenes - one of Romeo, and one... ... middle of paper ... ...extremely dissimilar because they are both aimed at different audiences, and different audiences expect and enjoy different things. To conclude this essay, I would like to say that I thought the Luhrmann version had the more effective opening. It was quick, action-packed and in your face and contained props and landscape from my generation. This was the decisive factor, as I could identify with them.
The Speckled Band by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was entertaining as a written story, but it was even more enjoyable as a film because the movie played out scenes that were only described by dialogue in the book, flushed out the murder plot in a clearer manner, and created more realistic and dynamic characters. Turning older literature into movies that available to the general public prevents them from falling by the way side as many story from the past have a tendency to
It is entirely possible that when this play was performed in Shakespeare’s time this is exactly how the actor spoke his lines, but it is not clear one way or the other from the printed page. All in all, the film version of Richard III might be even more terrifying and brutal than the print version, because modern audiences will probably connect more with a visual image of atrocity rather than a purely written one. I believe that this is the power of Shakespeare’s work– it is powerful on paper, but still more powerful in performance. It is performance that lends his work its full potential, and as such the film of Richard III is true to the core argument of Shakespeare’s original text, illustrating the inner beast found in the soul of a man.
Franco Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrmann have recreated the ancient play to make it comprehendible to their audience. Although Zeffirelli has accomplished his goal, it is not up to date with his time and a smaller audience has understood the great truths portrayed. Luhrmann had made the play so modern that a broad audience was attracted to his version simply because their understandings of the great truths are more accurate. Love is expressed much more differently between the two versions of Romeo and Juliet. Luhrmann adopted love to be a common emotion felt by the modern world.
The acting was great, the portrayl of the characters believable, but the dialogue and plot was not well developed and therefore the movie lacked a sense of completion. The spectacle was wonderful, there was great use of light, objects, angles but the work was definitely lacking essential parts. The literary lesson to learn from this work, is that a few good points of a work do not make up for the lacking parts. A film, television show, novel, or essay needs to clear and concise and complete.
Film Review: Mindwalk If a good movie is one that makes you think, Mindwalk must be superb. However, I haven’t even read the book it was based on and I can say that the book must have been better. The actors are laughable, and the physicists’ accent changes with each new scene. Furthermore, the transitions to each scene are as smooth as sandpaper. The purpose of this movie wasn’t, and with good reason, to be glamorous though.
Comparing Movie Versions of Romeo and Juliet Being faced with Baz Luhrmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet is, to be honest, a little disappointing. At first glance the film looks very promising – a classic love story, great actors and a modern twist. But unfortunately, it just doesn’t work. The opening scene of the film hardly grabs your attention, with a very dull scene in which a newsreader reads out Shakespeare’s original prologue but attempts to make it sound like a news-article. By the time you’ve figured out what’s going on, the film has already started.
However the essential storyline could be aimed at a young audience with themes of forbidden love, violence and family feuds. Therefore the main problem facing Luhrmann's film was not the plot but the language. Luhrmann's film interpretation of Romeo and Juliet compensates for the setbacks produced through language because Luhrmann has enclosed modern day scenes, clothing and music to create a more exciting and enthralling film, whilst still using the original Shakespearean language from the text. This makes Luhrmann's adaptation of the play very different from other versions on the market. It shifts away from interpretations such as Zefferelli's, which does not meet teenage desires.
Is this because we have all underestimated the film and overlooked its momentousness, or could it be the fact that the film was just simply over-rated in the first place? If the film was re-rated today, I am certain that it would not have the same success or praise. Our generation are up to date with the modern technologies. Today’s films are jam-packed with special effects but I’m afraid that Battleship Potemkin, the ‘masterpiece’, did not have any special effect on me. With only seeing a small section of the film, I personally don’t see the attraction.