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. However, as Patterson suggests the Quarto version may be closer to what audiences saw on the stage at the end of the sixteenth century. Subsequent critics and directors may have chosen to abandon the Quarto edition because it was convenient to do so along with the fact that it did not include some of Henry’s most stirring rhetoric such as “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more (III.i.1). Therefore the critical perception of the Quarto and Folio of Henry V indirectly informs the direction of films and productions of Henry V. As a consequence,... ... middle of paper ... ...mself. It is perhaps a virtually impossible task to make a play like Henry V relevant because of the rise of modern warfare and the fall of autocracy.
This would have probably made the audience a bit more negative. The main reason that Shakespeare wrote it the way he did was that it would've made the audience feel positive and happier. It made them think that they were learning about the history of their country while at the same time having a good time. It would've also given them an escape from their dreary, laborious lives. To conclude, Shakespeare's Henry V is more pageant than play but for the right reasons.
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. A way to correct this in the movie is to remove the father – son relationship between Hugo and the coach. Without that interconnection between the two characters, viewers are more apt to infer their own opinions about Hugo’s rationale, and this relates alongside of Shakespeare’s play
When comparing the written story of Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, and the video representation by director Franco Zeffirelli, noticeable differences make each version unique. Reading Shakespeare 's version of Hamlet cannot have as strong of an impact as Zeffirelli 's representation because of a weak protagonist, dull scenery, and comparably subpar exposition. The characterization in both works presents a different interpretation of personalities as well as interpersonal relationships between players. Having a visual translation of the scenery helps to create a picture of where the story is actually taking place. Shakespeare 's structure of Hamlet isn 't bad, however, the reader of this play could benefit from the extra scenes of the film and more detail within conflicts that the personas endure at Elsinore Castle.
Shaw's repetition in the epilogue of the content and themes contained in Saint Joan, combined with the insertion of purely historical facts lacking in dramatic relevance, is a flaw to what is otherwise a brilliant play. Shaw's need to explain his work, as evidenced by his lengthy prefaces to many plays, most likely compelled him to include the epilogue. However, the explicit explanations contained in the epilogue lessen the power of the action that precedes it. As a result, an audience is likely to come away from the performance easily able to conclude what Shaw's intentions were, rather than coming to the ideas that Shaw wanted to present by reflecting on the events of the play. Bibliography:
'Macbeth on the Estate' raises issues about bringing Shakespeare to different audiences. Some people would say that Shakespeare should be left untouched. Others welcome the changes, as does actor Sir Ian McKellen "If an audience enjoys it, it will be Shakespeare that they are enjoying." Changes to the text are done with varying success. I think 'Macbeth on the Estate' would have been better if the language would have been updated, as the Shakesperian language doesn't seem to fit with the modern characters.
It is uncertain whether or not the audience would perceive the part of the scene where Faustus’ leg falls off as humourous or not, it depends on their view of slapstick comedy in relation to and included in this play. As a part of the contemporary audience, I feel that it is unnecessary and lowers the dramatic quality at this point, however I would think that an Elizabethan audience would disagree. They would be going to the theatre to be entertained, and may have expected some comedy even in a play as tragic as 'Dr Faustus'. In spite of this, I feel that the overall dramatic quality of the central scenes is positive and effectively worked to further Marlowe’s themes. One should bear in mind that even though the type of humour that operates in these scenes is not directed at a contemporary audience and therefore they may not find it as humourous as an audience of the time, modern advantages of better props, settings and stage techniques would improve the dramatic quality of the play.
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.
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.
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.