The Stolen Plays William Shakespeare is a fraud. Whoever wrote the plays Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night’s Dream and many more plays was a phenomenal writer. He or she was able to rhyme, use iambic pentameter, use puns, and was able to contribute 1,200 at minimum of the English language in one play itself. Which Williams Shakespeare was clearly unable to write these plays. Many people believe he wrote the plays that are in his name but as research shows he did not have the right education, he did not have the means, motive, or opportunity, and he did not publish any of his plays while he was alive.
After reading the chapter Shakespeare without all those Words, I have to agree with the arguments in it. Although I am no pro on Shakespeare or not even a repetitive reader of his works I tend to believe that what is said throughout the chapter to be true like many of the great masterpieces of our era. The meanings get lost over time and through manipulation. In today’s society everyone wants the gratification of something without putting the effort in to achieve it. The inexperienced reader Shakespeare may take many, many readings before it becomes clear.
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.
'Nosferatu' also uses non-diegetic sound but it was added at a later date because the technology wasn't advanced enough at the time of making. I think both films achieve the effect of suspense and tension through the use of that type of sound. This links to my second point, Nosferatu is told much like a book, as it uses old-style fonts when there is a description of what is happening or what the characters are saying. The film tells you what is happening in this way because, again the technology was not advanced enough to include sound. 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' uses quick cuts and close-ups during the fight scene, this is to suggest action and fast pace.
After reading the novel and watching the movie, I also feel the movie version did not accurately renovate the original novel. With various important scenes missing, confusion about the main character, and an indistinct recreation of the plot, Forman did not precisely revive the authentic purpose into his film. Because films are usually interpreted a bit differently than novels, Forman knew that Kesey’s story had to be edited and changed to fit a new format, as well as updated to be relevant 13 years later; he decided to delete and tweak plenty of scenes from the novel. In Kesey’s story, Maxwell Taber, a patient in the ward, has already been released before Randle McMurphy, the protagonist, has been admitted into the hospital; but he was present throughout most of the movie. Not to mention, Charles Cheswick, the first patient to support McMurphy’s future rebellions, drowns in the hospital pool about halfway through the novel; he never dies in the movie version.
Hitler had striking talking capacities, which helped him charm general society. His utilization of power with the SA and the powerlessness of the Left wing political gatherings to join together likewise helped in his ascent. Hitler additionally utilized the shortcoming of the constitution the marking of the Versailles settlement to cut down the Weimar Republic. With all these points of interest on his side, and with the wretchedness hitting Germany hard in 1929, it was simply a matter of time before Hitler might "guarantee his throne". The Depression was the absolute most vital variable in Hitler's ascent to power.
In Henry V, Branagh is relatively unconcerned with the actual Elizabethan context of Henry V or the historical accuracy of the film. Therefore Branagh updates Henry V through reflecting modern values and also removes the play from its political context. In correlation to the trend of literary criticism, productions of Henry V have been prone to favouring the Folio text over the Quarto text. As Patterson notes the Quarto is not only shorter than the folio but their content and politics are radically different: The two surviving texts of Henry V point in different interpretive directions; the folio can possibly sustain the hypothesis of ideological confusion or deliberate ambiguity; whereas the theses of Campbell and Tillyard could be better supported by The Cronicle History of Henry the fifth, the first Quarto version, which has long been ruled out of interpretative account by Shakespearean bibliographers, and placed in the evaluative category of the ‘Bad Quartos’, that is to say, beyond interpretive reach. The Quarto versions of Shakespeare’s play have often been assumed to be memorial reconstructions or the products of piratical printers in league with avaricious players.
The book also has more suspense while the movie moves too fast and cuts out scenes. The movie moving too fast causes it to be very predictable. Three major differences that stood out include missing characters and characters perceived differently, essential scenes left out and the way the book shows individual people while the movie shows the relationships in action. The book versus the movie shows clear differences but the morals are all still the same. ... ... middle of paper ... ... To say both the book and the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird were closely related would be an understatement.
History is an important to today’s modern society because it shows the attitudes and culture of that society and shows patterns of society that can teach us how to avoid such things as genocide and war. The piece that will be adapted in this essay is Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen which will be adapted into a movie. There will have to be some changes to the poem to the length of the plot and setting up the beginning of the story. The movie will also have to keep with the overall theme of the story that war is grim and the effect that war has on soldiers. With an adaptation to a new medium, aspects of the poem could be lost or strengthen.
An Exciting Start to Baz Luhrmann's Film Version of Romeo and Juliet Many people do not like Shakespearian plays, this is because of the use of old English language, a language so different from our modern language it would seem something totally different. Lots of people would be instantly put off by the words, which they often wouldn’t understand, like when watching a foreign film. Shakespearian plays are usually played out in the traditional dress of the day, over four hundred years old. The clothes worn and language spoken makes most Shakespearian plays quite a challenge to watch. Baz Luhrmann the director of “Romeo & Juliet” faced a very difficult dilemma when creating the film version of the Shakespearian Play; firstly he wanted it to appeal to viewers, especially the younger generations who probably never before watched or read a Shakespeare play.