Generations of readers and performers have misunderstood her character, and probably misrepresented her. Tucking Katharina into the "crazy shrew" package may be very convenient for the director looking for an easy production, but it is probably incorrect. In fact, no production that produces the play as a straightforward farce does the character of Katharina any justice. Works Cited MacKenzie, Agnes Mure. The Women in Shakespeare's Plays.
Shakespeare uses hyphens to indicate a pause which could totally mean a different thing. Shakespeare uses dramatic irony to his advantage so that the audience knows what Juliet is talking, while Lady Capulet only knows a limited amount of information. Luhrmann totally cuts this part of the scene out. The effect of Luhrmann cutting this part of the scene out of the play is that the audience will not be able to identify Juliet deceiving her mother meaning that the relationship between Lady Capulet and Juliet is closer in the film. Shakespeare uses dramatic irony and Form to display the fact that Juliet is deceiving her mother, as the audience knows what she is talking about while, Lady Capulet does not know what... ... middle of paper ... ...however it is better in the play as he doesn’t get angry with his daughter quickly and doesn’t fly into an incandescent rage when she denies him.
In other words, the main characters try to stop their downfall but are brought down by factors they could not control or alter. This contrasts radically with Shakespeare's concluding tragedies e.g. Macbeth. In my estimation, Macbeth brings about his own demise due to his egotistic, demonic, power-hungry personality and this a stark dissimilarity to that of Romeo and Juliet's end. Despite the fact,... ... middle of paper ... ...d in the paragraph prior.
With a little bit of comedy and brilliant usage of symbolism, Luhrmann makes it work. In no way are the themes or intent of the balcony scene in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet lost. The audience still sees the passionate love between Romeo and Juliet. Due to all the differences updating the play for his film, Luhrmann was smart to change the balcony scene. The traditional scene would have seemed inconsistent with the rest of the film.
I didn’t leave the play with a sense hat I learned something from it. The play for me just seemed to carry on into this long path of unhappiness. I would have felt better if something, such as the death of Brad, would have changed the characters’ attitudes. Little seemed to make these characters see that they lived in a destructive household. I did not particularly like the ending, but I do think that it was maybe trying to portray what I was hoping to see.
If you have read through Shakespeare’s plays, you’ll come to realize that many of the characters have similar traits or situations. Although some can be compared to one another, they are also very different in their own ways. The play Macbeth is about a man whose attempts to seize power ruin his life. Tempest is about a man who uses magic to reconcile with his brother of past disagreements. The main characters Macbeth from Macbeth and Prospero from Tempest are similar because both want power, but different in the ways that they gain authority, and the initial sources of control.
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.
Reason and love in A Midsummer Night’s Dream Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is often read as a dramatization of the incompatibility of “reason and love” (III.i. 127), yet many critics pay little attention to how Shakespeare manages to draw his audience into meditating on these notions independently (Burke 116). The play is as much about the conflict between passion and reason concerning love, as it is a warning against attempting to understand love rationally. Similarly, trying to understand the play by reason alone results in an impoverished reading of the play as a whole – it is much better suited to the kind of emotive, arbitrary understanding that is characteristic of dreams. Puck apologises directly to us, the audience, in case the play “offend[s]” us, but the primary offence we can take from it is to our rational capacity to understand the narrative, which takes place in a world of inverses and contrasts.
Alonso, the king of Naples, is sailing home after the marriage of his daughter, Claribel, to the King of Tunis. During the voyage the weather suddenly deteriorates, and Alonso’s ship is separated from the rest of the fleet and driven towards an island. Miranda has seen this shipwreck and asks her father, Prospero, to help the victims, especially as he is the one responsible for carrying out the storm. Prospero has done everything to make sure that no harm comes to anyone and that he has used his magical powers entirely f... ... middle of paper ... ...to give power to prospero to carry his plan on the couple. Miranda and Ferdinand take Prospero’s criticisms at face value: ‘Speak not you for him: he’s a traitor.
The play starts with the story of Prospero, the Duke of Milan. He gets banished from Italy and was cast to sea by his brother Antonio. He has perfected his skills during twelve years of exile on a lonely island. Prospero creates the tempest to make his enemies’ ship to wreck and lead them to the island. Meanwhile, Antonio takes Prospero’s place and starts to make everyone believe he is the duke and makes an agreement with the King of Naples, Alonso.