While actors and costumes add other elements in both cases, the budgets for both projects are often vastly different. Language was also another element that Miller had to adjust from both projects. If you look in the text, the language used is far more relevant to that of the time period. The screenplay however, uses a similar form of this historical speech. Though, the text was written in the language patterns of the late 1700’s, when compared to the more modern Americanized version is lessened by Miller who states, “The Problem was not to imitate the archaic speech but to try to create a new echo of it which would flow freely off American actor’s tongues,” an important field to maintain when writing dialogue for
Although based on Shakespeare’s classic work by the same name the film align closely with the facts as we know them from Plutarch. However, and perhaps more surprising than the films ability to keep true to the facts of what happened 1,642 years ago is its applicability to today’s society. The story of rulers who overextend themselves is (in a way) still a reoccurring theme in today’s global society and is a story that we can relate closely with. With that said and despite the excellent portrayals of Mark Antony by Marlon Brando and Cassius by John Gielgud I fear the word for word replica of Shakespeare’s original alienates the general public from truly understanding the film. Julius Caesar was a great film sixty-three years ago and it still is today – however, it is not excellent.
The question hangs heavy from peers and others. Why would Hollywood change the story of Beowulf? Why would Hollywood change how characters react to their setting and with other characters? Does this relate to any modern conflicts and literature? In the Beowulf poem, Beowulf is many things, Honest, Heroic, Strong, Loyal, and a gratifying provider.
It can be fascinating to see how a modern, twenty-first century movie can be based on a play written in the early seventeenth century. Even though there are any similarities, there are also many differences with both themes of the play and the movie. Although Shakespeare’s work may be very old, it still has a huge influence on our world till today, and will probably be like that for a long
In my revision of both Allen’s and Lurhmann’s interpretation of the original novel ‘The Great Gatsby’ I will make the connections of both characters and themes and show the effectiveness of the films as representations of Fitzgerald’s ‘The Great Gatsby’. Luhrmann’s ‘Midnight in Paris’ capture of Gil and Inez’s relationship compare greatly to the relationship of both Daisy and Tom but within their relationship there is deeper meaning of what Fitzgerald tried to accomplish. In ‘The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Midnight in Paris’ it’s all about ‘The Golden Age’ and attempting to live in the past. In the movie Gil said, “That 's what the present is. It’s a little unsatisfying because life is unsatisfying”.
Throughout the history of Shakespearen literature, Shakespeare tends to develop the characters in to a way that complements the story. For an example, in Macbeth, he shows the digression of the main character by an internal conflict residing from a mental condition, if he did not explain every detail of his thought process then the story would be bland and not a literature masterpiece. Another key example is the story of Romeo and Juliet, even though it is a romantic piece, he still assigns different personality traits to each character. Which makes them a key asset to how the story concludes and the theme the reader is left to discover. One of the biggest colliding character interactions is Benvolio and Tybalt.
As argued by Andrew Dix, ‘narrative reoccurrence may also denote the complexity and ambiguity of an event, its openness to multiple interpretations’ (2008, 114), and Pulp Fiction certainly supports this. An example would be in the prologue of Pulp Fiction, where the action and event isn’t resolved till the end, emphasising the films relationship between film time and real time. It is this which makes the shot chosen in the opening scene to be an essential part in the films overall narrative, something viewers are unaware of. Here, the minimal use of camera movement is to be crucial to the contribution to the storytelling within the sequence. The initial shot is of the two protagonists, Ringo and Yolanda who are sat at a table of what looks
3. Quote: “The foamy wavelets curled up to her white feet, and coiled like serpents about her ankles…The touch of the sea is sensuous, enfolding the body in its soft, close embrace” (124). Literary/Style Elements: Simile and Imagery Commentary: Chopin expands on the motif of the sea due to it being a key part of Edna finding the new and improved version of herself, yet it stands by like her calling to come join the ocean in being comforted in serenity from her problems. Edna in the simile with the serpents indicates that the ocean is also a guilty pleasure since it draws her to act on impulse rather her think rationally about decisions. Additional Ideas: Serpents symbolically represent evil, therefore as they coiled at her ankles it was drawing her into the ocean without second thought.
Orson Welles is held in the minds of many as a notable film director and actor, but his work in other modes of storytelling is often overlooked. I intend in this paper to analyze one of those overlooked works, the play he authored and produced in London Moby Dick—Rehearsed, adapted from the novel. It is my intention to demonstrate that this work subscribes to what we may call Welles’s philosophy of storytelling in order to encompass his film, theatre, and radio works—he frames the story of the novel in a way that is consistent with his other works, he himself plays and “transfigures” the role of the “king,” and he parodies the genre of theatre itself. Moby Dick—Rehearsed is not a “straight” adaptation of the novel. Instead, Welles adapts
Would there ever be a good modern adaptation for “Othello” by Shakespeare? Or is it possible that a movie based on Othello could be better than the actual play by Shakespeare? Or if Shakespeare was still alive, would he like the idea of making a movie of his play or would he agree to the modernization of such tragedy written by him? Based on the 2001 Film “Othello” by Tim Blake Nelson and “Othello” by Shakespeare, both the film and the play share some similarities among their characters, and their plot. And as there are some similarities between the movie and the play, there are also some differences like in their setting.
In my opinion, the novel “The Lost Eagle of the Ninth” by Rosemary Sutcliff is somewhat more superior than the movie The Eagle. Though both have fine qualities and are well-developed, the novel is the original, it contains mainly more factual information about the Roman Period in British history, along with more advantages. I’m not trying to say that the movie is substandard, it also has many different and unique benefits. I plan to prove my argument by comparing and contrasting the story to the movie. I shall use any online sources that contain information about the movie, and I’ll use the book itself as well.
Shakespeare wrote The First Part of Henry the IV to adhere to an audience that would be familiar with the history and the characters within the play, because it was still considered recent history; however, he did alter the storyline to gear the play in a more tragic direction rather than writing the historical events as they truly happened. Similar to most of his plays, this play had been published multiple times, by several different publishers, which causes some discrepancies between the different versions. MORE DUMMY. A major difference that is clearly noticeable is the titles of the two versions, specifically with the amount of detail the titles give about the plot of the play. The 1598 version, which was published by P.S.
In the famous play Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare poses the question of “What is in a Name?”. Knowing the name behind a particular story or idea can change the way that you view it, which is why it is so crucial to understand who was really behind Shakespeare’s plays. Going back as early as the 19th century, historians began to doubt whether Shakespeare was the true author of the plays. At first, this idea was dismissed as another crazy conspiracy theory, but today, this theory is known as the Shakespeare Question. There are two main sides to the Shakespeare debate: the Stratfordians and the Anti-Stratfordians.
Unlike Piotr Szczypa 's article which encounters the specific approaches within the film to achieve certain impact on the audience; Christoph Classen weighs more on discussing the truths in Schindler 's List and researches for the explanations behind the scenes. In this article, the author spends wide coverage to argue the reasons why Schindler 's List cannot be fully considered as presenting the historical truth, even though Spielberg had tried his utter best to restore the environments and only reflect the evidence he got. In order to answer that problem, the article takes further steps into examine the “aesthetic, political, cognitive” dimensions of displaying a historical event which are inspiring for me to understand more about the existence of conflicts between the contemporary political parties to face the Nazi and holocaust issue. Additionally, though Spielberg deliberately wanted this film to be based on the facts, the article addresses the how people 's memories might have different interpretations in the film, which is another possibility of misrepresenting the fact. I think the comparisons and the thinking, as the article addresses in the title, about how historical truth can be involved in history, memory and culture can provide various aspects to rethink about this film because they view the film as a demonstration of a cultural phenomenon within the society.