He is still thus in the movie, but is more whiny, and annoyingly so. Putnam, also, seems to have a personality change. In the play, his personality is not so domineering as in the movie, where he is bordering on psychotic. His role seems to be made larger and more significant in the movie, which presumably accounts for the change in character representation. Throughout reading Arthur Miller's play and watching the movie I have come to understand why we separate church and state.
These attributes included musical fixtures such as driving tribal-like tom beats, dreary lyrics, and the aforementioned Gothic fashion. In part influenced by lead singer Robert Smith’s mental stress, the album was critically dismissed upon release, however it would prove to be influential to many artists (Mason Online). After a period of pop-oriented albums, The Cure returned to Gothic rock with 1989’s Disintegration. This album would become The Cure’s most popular and iconic album. However, while being recognized as a return to the band’s previous style, these two albums differ immensely in their relation to Gothic rock due to musical, lyrical, and visual differences.
On the one hand, many argue that “humor is the only truthful way to show the truth” (Freda Freiberg, 2007). On the other hand, others felt that “any fictional treatment was inappropriate because fiction- whether popular entertainment or high art- smacks of falsity. While the Holocaust was too real, thus, they believed its reality could only be conveyed by factual documentation and testimony” (Freiberg, 2007). Even though it is a funny movie, Chaplin uses humor as a vehicle to delve into a serious subject. Although using humor might be considered scandalous to some critiques, everyone can admit that Chaplin made a remarkable film based on his famous sense of humor.
The difference between the two is Victor did it more by choice and his desire for knowledge, whereas the creature is isolated by society due to his gruesome looks. Although the idea of isolation isn’t necessarily a romantic ideal, their ideas and desires as a result of their isolation exemplify romantic era thinking. For example, Victor explained that “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through…. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley 51). Romantics often viewed science as going to far which Shelly illustrates by the disastrous results of Victor’s creation, but Victor’s though process is a representation of the individual.
Literature is a medium of words, and film is a medium of images, so, I can understand why the two characters show their love physically and don’t completely leave it up to the speech to show their feelings. Both scenes worked; however, Luhrmann’s received harsh criticism while Zeffirell’s was emotionally captivating. The Elizabethan 16th century England setting stays true to Shakespeare’s original play, and sets a classic tone and atmosphere. The magic of Zeffirelli’s film is it takes you into another world, the beautiful scenery of Verona with the, for the most part, comprehensible language of Shakespeare. Mixing a modern day world with this language, what Luhrmann did, does not work well.
Directors nowadays usually create a movie based on a book to simply add and subtract things from the original texts. This simply to show the world their version of things. James Whale in his movie Frankenstein did not stay faithful to Mary Shelley’s book. There were quiet a number of differences in the movie in comparison to the book. The most astonishing difference is the fact that the creature is accepted as a human rather than a monster.
Dangerous Ideas through time book: Texts can be valued independently but are more stimulating through comparison as we appreciate the complex influences of context and form. Highlight the benefits of correlating info from two unrelated texts. Demonstrate how a contemporary text (Blade Runner) reiterates the concepts inherent in classic text (Frankenstein), and how context and form influences their meaning. Determined by different social, economic and historical contexts, authors explore and address similar concerns of society. Mary Shelley’s prose fiction novel, Frankenstein (1818) and Ridley Scott’s science fiction film, Blade Runner 1982), view the change in value of the pursuit of knowledge that leads to the moral ramifications of the creators Victor and Tyrell.
It’s not like writing about teenage romance or mystical monsters, where the author must portray great streams of emotion, or create conjured up images of ghoulish beasts seen only in our nightmares. Then again, reality can sometimes be a nightmare in and of itself; as O’Brien points out, “In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen.” (Meyer 320) It’s just about the facts, right? Is the truth so boring that people feel it must be “spun” in order to make it interesting enough to read? While telling any type of true story most certainly requires a certain degree of guile, grace and discretion, a war story must be doubly so. Perhaps this is why Tim O’Brien prefers writing “fiction” and seldom writes “true” war stories.
In Mel Brook’s classic film Young Frankenstein, Gene Wilder’s creature struggles to overcome his revolting appearance in order to prove himself capable of human emotions and reasoning. While Brooks’s work is only a loose adaptation of the classic novel by Mary Shelley, it is worth noting that this specific theme – that moral character is unfairly judged by appearance – transcended both versions. Perhaps Brooks, like the audience that first read Frankenstein, realized that judgment by appearance is one of the most developed themes of the original novel, and one that continues to be the most poignant. Throughout the novel of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley argues that society unfairly judges by appearance, casting out anything that is socially
Frankenstein was the representative scary character for a long time in my memory before I really read this fiction. The image was the huge body with yellow eyes, hideous and bloody surgery scars, rotten smells, and the horrible monster itself as in the nightmare. This image would be the popular description of Frankenstein (strictly speaking, it’s not Frankenstein but Frankenstein’s creature.) because of many distorted famous movies or cartoons about it. However, I feel no more fear toward him now but only pity and sympathy.