Bertolt Brecht gave a concept of “Aliegnation theory” and “epic theatre”. His idea of the actor’s role is very different from Stanislavski’s. By showing theatre, he wants to educate his audience in an entertaining manner. He thought that audience were manipulated by beautiful sets and theatre technology, lighting, makeup, imaginary fourth wall and also by emotionally effusive acting techniques. He was always against the illusion created by traditional theatre in which the audience observes a slice of life.
Otherwise, without this permission, they would know that the film is a sham and not worthy of their time and money. Like consuming magic, I like how I now see the act of watching films as relying on that ironic autonomous choice of paying great illusionists in order to be completely fooled. To be duped is necessary to living as another character or as a whole range of
", and it is a real occasion when these words are pronounced by the actor in the play. Support to this claim could be found in Amy Cook 's essay "Staging Nothing: Hamlet and Cognitive Science" where she explains the subject of theater 's blend of fiction and reality: "Onstage everything is a hybrid: part representation, part the thing itself. When Shakespeare writes: "Who 's there?" it is a fiction; when the actor says it onstage, it is partially fiction and partially a real question asked by a real man asked in a real situation". For this reason, it seems that the actor has a complex status which is derived from the fact that he is in a complex status, because he finds himself in a complex status where the reality and the fiction are mixed together.
Neal Gabler is one of these people. Gabler’s claim that entertainment is ruining society is misguided based on the simple case of hope. Although there needs to be a fine line between reality and entertainment, both are necessary in society. Human’s need entertainment to take them to the places that reality can not. To escape the clutches of reality when reality becomes too much at once.
When thinking about morality, it can be defined as being able to make the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Sextus ' argument can be associated with this because as a human being we know that we can 't be prejudice, or that we at least shouldn 't be. If we are judging other people 's actions, and are constantly concerned with what they 're doing, how can we ever really focus on our self? This is a point that can be connected back to Sextus ' thoughts and reasoning behind us achieving serenity from suspending judgement. For someone to be acting prejudice towards others, this implies that they must not be content with themselves, and that they are trying to find reassurance in themselves through judging others.
We are often inclined to believe that we are self-righteous and selfless. Yet we are also quick to condemn the actions of others whilst being unaware of our own greedy nature. When we are put in situations that demand us to make a choice between helping another individual or ensuring our own survival, we are more likely to choose the thing that can benefit us the most, even if it goes against our morals and our perception of ourselves. This conflict can be seen in Survivor Syndrome that is a short story that was written by Liz Jensen in 2011. It portrays the story of a man by the name Dmitri who is on a quest to capture a picture that embodies human tragedy.
Despite their supposed inferiority, there seems to be a great interest in adaptations of well known stories. How can this be explained? It has been mentioned that adaptations are never perfect copies of their source; every similarity and deviation from the source is a deliberate choice by the creator. This, explains Hutcheon, makes every adaptation an interpretation of its source. Which scenes are necessary for the story?
While performativity has several aspects, first, I shall focus on theatricality. The bijin had been represented through the performer’s unnatural poses and extravagant garments, which emphasise theatricality. However, theatricality does not always demonstrate dramatic and conspicuous performance; it does not always happen on stage either. Following Josette Feral’s definition, I presume theatricality as a capacity to create a space of an illusion, upon the spectator’s gaze . As long as there is an agreement between the spectator and artists that the performance is a fiction by the use of signs, even the exploration of realism is still a form of constructing illusion.
This double impact of misfortunes coheres with the treatment of external goods as a pre-condition for the exercise of virtuous rational activity. Since misfortunes can jeopardize external goods, and those are a necessary condition for engaging in virtuous activity --which is what happiness consists in--, misfortunes can make us unhappy by taking away what it was, for us, to act virtuously. Moreover, misfortunes make us feel pain in relation to our acting in the new circumstances –as it takes some habituation to find enjoyment in doing the new right
At this point, I must acknowledge that while my claims up to now seem to imply that doubt only functions as a hazard to knowledge, but that is not always the case. While uncertainty can certainly cause trouble, it also makes a person more cautious and open-minded. To bring it back to my example, because of my doubt in my own capabilities I worked hard in order to make up for