His theatre was a response to the lack of realism taught in teachers Stanslavski and Danchenko’s regimes which he believed was a mediocre attempt at reflecting daily life, belief that theatre should have more depth than repeating the everyday reality one experiences. Meyerhold had four main aims for his Biomechanics theatre. The first aim being that he wished to establish his own method of actor training; yearning to eliminate Stanislavski’s influence of “The Method,” which relied heavily upon recreating a moment through voice and facial expressions, and very little upon using the body, therefore tying into his other aim, to change the role of the body in performances. Meyerhold felt that Realism had been stripped of body movements that helped to tell the story, as it relied heavily on dialogue and extreme emotion to lead the scenes, so using these as their theatre’s only expressive mediums, the body had lost its impact, therefore he brought the use of the body up to par with the use of voice and
Right before the Inspector turns up, Mr Birling is telling Gerald and Eric that “…a man has to make his own way…” However later on in the play, the Inspector says that “We are members of one body.” Right after saying this, the Inspector gets up and leaves. This is one way Priestley shows how opposite these are by the timing of the Inspectors arrival and his departure. The Inspector and Mr Birling have very different views about how people are treated. Mr Birling believes you should put yourself before others, and make sure you look good and that you don’t do anything that could embarrass you, before you worry about someone else, however the Inspector believes that we are all equals and should be treated no differently from each other, it doesn’t matter what our class is or how much money we have or if we are the head of a large company. This shows they are very different characters, this could be because Mr Birling is a capitalist and the Inspector is a socialist, their views on society and the treatment of other people are completely different.
Xunzi, on the other hand, says that humans are naturally bad and “lack any inborn guide to right conduct” (p. 256). A heavy emphasis is placed on learning, because according to Xunzi virtue is attained (and bad nature is fixed) through learning, ritual, and nurture (pp. 258-259). Without these rituals and teachings, chaos and violence would arise (p. 298). While Mencius says almost nothing about ritual, Xunzi has clear beliefs and expectations of it.
The Hays Code forced the writer and director of the film, John Huston, to clean up the script and eliminate almost all sexual references. Huston tried to remain as faithful to the source material as possible in spite of this and eventually found ways to suggest what he could not show. Since he could not display Peter Lorre’s character’s homosexuality as the original film had done, Huston had to find ways around it. Huston did this by giving Lorre’s character, Joel Cairo, effeminate qualities that could make it past the censors and be comprehended by an intelligent audience. Cairo’s handkerchiefs are scented with gardenias and he is overly concerned with his clothing, even becoming hysterical when blood ruins his shirt.
#2: Image versus Sound – 2001: A Space Odyssey Despite the deficiencies of any verbal activity and profound human dialogue, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey communicates with its audiences on a deeper level. The film’s narrative structure and the messages behind it are vaguely, not necessarily poorly, demonstrated. And Kubrick himself explained that the purpose of his movie was “intended to be an intensely subjective experience.” Alexander Walker, supporting Kubrick’s claim, noted that in order to experience this film, the audience must “make their own imaginative connection.” As he explained that adding captions to the Mona Lisa would shut off the viewer’s appreciation , Kubrick minimizes the use of conversations and also incorporates the futility of dialogues in order to maximize the subjective experiences of the audience. Also he wants the viewing to be a musical experience. Appropriately throughout the film, Kubrick uses pre-existing music to translate the images.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: Critical Evaluation of Opening Scenes Tom Stoppard’s film adaption of his play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, has a distinct difference from its original performance script. From the opening scenes, modifications have been made to change the emphasis on certain ideas. Stoppard subtly changes the meaning of the narrative through emphasising particular aspects in characterisation and changes in the script. With a realistic setting and the point of view created by the camera, the changes are furthered simply by the medium of film. The opening scene of the adaptation differs from that of the play script in that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are travelling through an ominous, mountain landscape, rather than being still in “a place without any visible character”.
In the reading Death in Venice, adapting Mann and Mahler written by Henry Bacon, the author discusses both sides of the opinions and interpretations of Visconti’s film. The success of the film was greatly built on the combined ‘superpower’ like reputations of Visconti, Mahler and Mann. These reputations created a set standard for the film. The visual nature of film, and the changes made to the plot created a collection of interpretative issues for the piece. Some critics even saw the film as a perversion of the novella and that the relationship between Aschenbach and Tadziu was ruined through the visual aspects film.
Both King and Thoreau discuss civil disobedience and when it is just to break unfair laws. Another topic they discussed is the merit of authority, and how they were disappointed by the action the majority takes towards certain issues. Henry Thoreau mostly emphasizes on how civil disobedience is important because he believes that governments should consider everybody's opinions. Both have the same common logic, but they express their views in a completely different manner. King uses better emotional appeals so that his audience feels compelled to his cause, King also uses figurative language to create a powerful tone that provides his essay with a meaningful effect; while Thoreau uses more ethos and common logic.
This is why I believe lines 1-52 should be kept, as they are sufficient to show the audience the theme, and a major plot development. Lines 52-71, as I believe, may be eliminated from the play. It is continuous rambling from Polonius, and unnecessary for the production. Polonius is just [providing further advice] to Reynaldo, and it is not necessary, as it will become repetitive to the audience. Lines 53-55 only depict Polonius as being an idiot, for he loses his chain of thought.
This attitude completely negates the translators’ essential intervention in the text. So, from a lay viewpoint since the translators get involved in conveying the meaning of words, they always betray the culture of the source text. This commonplace idea shows the layperson’s ignorance of the translator’s complex task. Is the translator really always a Traitor to the culture of the source text? Does he have to remain “invisible” to be faithful to the original text?