His plays have also been described as lacking action and being too didactic. In Saint Joan, Shaw reduced the intensity of these previously criticized typically Shavian elements and thus, met with much critical success. However, in my view, the play's epilogue is redundant and unnecessary. It essentially repeats and reinforces the events of the play without enhancing the drama. And serves to add historical facts which are either familiar to the audience or which could have been inserted skillfully into the body of the play for greater dramatic effect.
And while his approach clearly errs from the way in which more traditional directors of Shakespeare’s Richard III create the setting of t... ... middle of paper ... ...’s movie differ from Shakespeare’s Richard III in various ways; and while they all combine to make an aesthetically pleasing rendition of the play, they may mislead viewers who have not read Shakespeare’s text or watched a live performance of the play. For instance, if one were to be totally ignorant of the fact that the movie is based on a drama from the seventeenth century, he or she might mistake it for just another movie that features “Gandalf” and some flowering language. That being said, although Loncraine’s adaptation is a joy to watch, the modern elements that make it appealing to viewers who are not English majors or theater fanatics—elements such as its relocation in time, its lack of important scenes and especially its ending—ultimately leave viewers who are familiar with Shakespeare’s Richard III with a feeling that something was lost in its making.
However, in O Hugo has clear motives for manipulating Odin (Criniti 116). Hugo’s jealously steams from “an angry teenage cry for attention, especially for the attention of an emotionally distant father,” writes Criniti (Criniti 116). Hugo lacks definite motives within the play and for an accurate adaptation of the movie the viewer should conclude his motives themselves, without being guided on how to understand the characters. A benefit of Shakespeare is the ability for the reader to analyze and infer the motives of the characters, and this is not the case with the film O. Although, readers of Othello may deduce the motive of Iago is due to the fact Cassio was promoted, but this is not written clearly in the text.
Shakespeare's Measure for Measure This reading of Measure for Measure will try to do more than draw attention to the extent to which Shakespeare goes beyond the conventional happy ending in this play. There are indications that the conclusions of many of the comedies are not really meant to bear up to close scrutiny; in Jaques¹ words, their loving voyages are not victual¹d for very long. In Measure for Measure we are openly challenged to question the adequacy of attaching a happy ending to a deeply troubling play. It seems that a stern question, regarding human nature and the adequacy of the comic resolution, cannot be deferred any longer. How do we preserve a community that will sustain and encourage the virtues after every Jaques gets his Jill?
When discussing any of Shakespeare’s pivotal works, it is nearly impossible to somehow relate them to Hamlet. Whether it is stark differences in character, plot similarities, or simply through literary devices, Shakespeare created a masterpiece through Hamlet. Nicolo Machiavelli also coined a treasure with The Prince. Through the lens of Hamlet and The Prince, one is able to dissect Shakespeare’s Macbeth with a greater understanding of Machiavellian beliefs. By placing Macbeth against Hamlet’s incredibly high standards, it becomes clear that the character of Macbeth is not a Machiavellian prince for one simple reason: he is not smart enough and lacks the foresight that Machiavelli preached.
The comparison between dialogue and soliloquy in Shakespeare’s Hamlet provides an alternate perspective upon a potentially perplexing protagonist, whose erratic and changeable behaviour has obstructed audiences from forming definitive conclusions. Whilst the conditions of soliloquy lend itself to the protagonist speaking truthfully, this inference can only be made by linking the concerns Hamlet expresses in soliloquy to the course of action he undertakes, whereas in a play so deeply riddled by false appearances and deliberate self-restraint, critics remain in conflict as to the true nature of Hamlet himself.
“The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” Winston Churchill seems to be saying, that if you don’t understand what happened in the past, you cannot help yourself in the future. William Shakespeare’s depiction of Julius Caesar is very controversial. It seems as if he gives the readers the chance to figure out if they like or dislike him. In the form of historical accuracy, Shakespeare is accurate with what he believes to be true. For Shakespeare, what he has written is accurate for his location and time.
Why is it that people fawn Shakespeare and have unreasonably high reguard for his works, including The Tempest, and label them as “immortal classics”? Indeed Shakespeare’s works had great significance in the evolution of English literature, but these works, including The Tempest are mostly devoid of significance and literary value in the present day. One can expect to gain little educational benefit of the english language or hightened apreciation for fine literature from the reading of Shakespeare’s titles for reasons enumerate. First of all, the colorful and sophisticated metephoric vernacular style of the language utilized is archaic; even the speech of intellectually refined individuals and other respected literary works do not imploy of this rich style of speech. The poemic composition of The Tempest does not increase one’s ability to apreciate distinguished literature because the refined and respected works of most other classical writers are in novel form and thus differ highly from Shakesperian works in the literary devices and mannerisms from which they are comprised.
Importance of the Induction in The Taming of the Shrew Many acclaimed scholars argue that the Induction in William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew is unnecessary and irrelevant to the main plot. (Bloom, 28) Shakespeare placed the induction into The Shrew for a specific dramatic purpose. The comedic tone of the play would be lost without the induction, resulting in a more literal interpretation of the play thus leaving the reader unable to distinguish the author’s true intention. One cannot fully grasp the meaning of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew until one understands the importance of the tie between the induction and the main plot. Shakespeare reveals this tie with the use of theme, character ties, gender roles, and imagery.
Rather, our author believes the more precise question should be asked as, "Was it Shakespeare or was it Oxford?" Price states, "Arguing an alternative case for a candidate who may or may not be the right one is ultimately an exercise in futility, because it does not first require that Shakespeare's literary biography be rejected on the strength of the evidence." It is through this false dichotomy that orthodox scholars are essentially off the hook. These orthodox supporters criticize the differences in the incidental case for the contender, while not exploring the same arguments thrown against the incumbents. This is because the authorship question is never a true way to attain objective.