I enjoyed both the book and the movie, but personally I think the book was better, because the movie left some of the things out that the book had in it. It’s not really surprising to me that the book was better than the movie because I think that most of the time books are better than
If the movie had more detail it would be more interesting. The book gave me a better picture. When I saw the movie it confused me because it didn’t have all the parts. If I just saw the movie I wouldn’t understand why Greasers and Socs were separated and why they hated each other. I think Cherry did a really good job; she fit the description really well I think.
The use of longer, more sophisticated words that made the paragraph easier to understand is also a good affect of the operation; his intelligence is now capable of so much that he is able to do this type of writing. 3. Another positive effect of the operation is having Charlie realize what it is like in the real world. What Charlie thinks of as good friends are really people who are using him as a joke. They trick him into becoming drunk, therefore making him look even more ridiculous and stupid
The Choragus’s unbiased suggestions and wise tactics added dramatic irony to the story. If the Choragus was not a character in the plot, I feel that the dramatic irony would have been less effective. Along with the chorus, the Choragus is like a sports commentator: he describes events and is an expert of a certain topic. The Choragus adds dramatic irony because he reveals information that helps the audience understand a few situations between other characters. He also ties loose ends.
Comparison between the two film versions Romeo & Juliet by Luhrmann & Zefferelli. The following task looks at the comparing & contrasting representations that have supported the understanding of Shakespeare's text. To consider the exercise here, of comparing and contrasting the films, there needs to be an understanding of the difference between Comparison- (which means to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc) in order to note similarities and differences) & Contrast- (which means a difference, especially a strong dissimilarity, between entities or objects compared.) When analyzing the two distinct 'Romeo and Juliet' films and comparing them, I noticed that both Zefferelli and Luhrmann had a different interpretation of Shakespeare’s version of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. For example, Franco Zefferelli produced his film in 1968, and Baz Luhrmann produced his in 1997.
The actors speak Shakespeare’s dialogue eloquently and beautifully which I can personally deem as poetry in motion. Having Macbeth interpreted this way; I believe that it makes it much more relatable and easier to understand. Often times, people have trouble when it comes to Shakespeare’s choice of words and how he lays out the discourse of his plays. In this film, that dilemma seems to be thrown out the window and the words paired with the actions, actors, and setting in the film, make it effortless to follow along. The acting is spot-on in this film.
Additionally, the transition in language allows the audience to see Mercutio as more than a jokester. Because of this, he gains credibility for his views. Furthermore, as the language used becomes less whimsical and more patently alarming, there is less breathing room between phrases, which creates the image of Mercutio losing control. Mercutio’s delivery of these lines is effective in that the audience is able to sense how destructive and delusional dreams are – to the point that they can drive a sane man mad. Through the “Queen Mab” speech, the audience it introduced to Mercutio’s lightning-quick wit and ability to steal a scene.
On the contrary, the film makes him look frightening, seeing as Odysseus himself seems rather scared when he is speaking with him. I believe this may be because the movie wants to portray Odysseus as being so much more favorable than everyone else, so it would be logical to not make Teiresias appear as grand as he seems in the other
Life Sucks Screen play adaptations commonly differ from the book on which they are based. Just like gossip between peers is enhanced for entertainment purposes, films are enhanced for these purposes as well. Between Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, and the screen play adaptation, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, by Kenneth Branagh, there are numerous differences in detail. Nonetheless, there are similarities in the undertone of both mediums that portray mutual morals. However, it would be a blatant falsehood to say that this film adaptation is free from inaccuracy, somehow above reproach, or indeed perfect.
To solve this problem the developers usually release two versions of the same movie. A rated one for more mature and young audiences and an unrated one, which usually consists of vulgarity every few seconds. ! The consequences of censorship can be devastating to some people but not all. Some negatives of this are that it works against creativity, and it may intrude the privacy of some people.