Is religion the root of all evil in global society? I personally disagree that religion is the real reason of all the evil that happens in our world today, and believe that the statement is one of the first quasi attempts to try to understand and to deal with evil. Religion in its essence is just a prescription to a better way of life and a guidance system for the heart and character. Religion is replete with motivation. However, it is just not too obvious and as progressive as it should be and the preachers/religious leaders need higher standards in method and scrutiny to keep up with civilization.
However, malvolio dresses up in act 3 scene 4 in vibrant clothes which subvert against the protestant views as they would normally dress in plain black clothing. Shakespeare creates malvolio to become a radical character that challenges societal expectations in order to express the difference from the status quo to the norm. In contrast to this, although Shakespeare created malvolio to be a character that is radical, we do not exactly see him indulging in the revelry of the play, therefore suggesting that he still retain his protestant ideals of not getting involved in such things. For example, in act 2 scene 3 where Sir Andrew and Sir Toby and Feste are all singing (indication of the revelry) Malvolio is the character that breaks this revelry and dismisses the characters. Ultimately malvolio to an extent challenges societal expectations, however only at small segments in the play, he is still a character right up until the end of the play that still retains his values as a protestant therefore doesn’t challenge societal expectations throughout the
The negotiated reading is when the audience does understand the intended meaning of a media text, but still chooses to reject it. For example, Once Upon A Time is a television show which tries to reinvent and intertwine the widely known fairytales within our culture. A negotiated reading would say that the text can be understood in terms of what the intended reading is, but the text isn't entirely believable because of things such as narrative and the technical and visual codes which leaves it lacking suture. There are many factors which impact an audiences reading of a media text. The demographic of an audience is one of them.
The famous play, “Romeo and Juliet”, by Shakespeare, has been adapted into two movies. Franco Zeffirelli directed a historical portrayal of the film and Baz Luhrmann directed a modern interpretation of the film. Although, the two films were both very enjoyable, I believe that Zeffirelli’s adaptation of the film was more engaging and captured the intense emotions of “Romeo and Juliet” better than Luhrmann’s. Zeffirelli’s version of Romeo and Juliet was portrayed a vivid image of Shakespeare’s original text. Director Zeffirelli went against the regular practice of using well-known actors in the lead roles.
The Holocaust started with Kristallnacht, which is “the Night of Broken Glass.” This occurred on November 7th, 1938. Over 7,000 Jewish shops were vandalized, synagogues were destroyed, and at least 91 people died. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps, but were released eventually. From 1933 to 1945, Jews were sent to concentration camps, these were used as a way to exterminate the Jewish population. In the beginning of the Holocaust, many people were sent to labor camps but died of infections or from working so much.
There is a cultural understanding between the characters, that these omens or messages from the spiritual realm have significant value. When Caesar states "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves", it is as if the author, William Shakespeare, is looking down at the world of the play, and creating commentary, by brining up another fundamental question, that of free will versus destiny. By highlighting this question, he is essentially asking, " what if if we have personal responsibility?” What if this entire concept of the "stars" or placing value in omens, messages or our spiritual destiny, isn't accurate? What if really, as "underlings", every choice we make and all "fault", is "in ourselves", or by our own cognition or free will? Displaying his idealist nature, Cassius blamed his, Brutus’s, and the other conspirators submissive stance not on a predestined plan, but on their failure to proclaim themselves.
At the end of a comedy, marriage is often used to symbolise the restoration of equilibrium and harmony after the chaos and confusion of the drama. To what extent is this true of The Taming of the Shrew? The Taming of the Shrew is a Shakespearean comedy play where it explored the theme of marriage. Marriage may be crucial to any comedies as it is the repair to disputes and conflicts; however The Taming of the Shrew only supported this statement to a certain extent. Marriage is reaffirming the traditional social order after chaos and confusion of the comedy.
He did not want them to relax and go into a different reality. He wanted them to stay in their own reality and properly understand what the play was around them. • The Brecht style of theatre was similar to Artaud’s. He did not want them to feel any emotional connection towards the characters so he barely gave them names or he just labelled them ‘man, woman, idiot child.’ He wanted the audience to get a message from the performance so he made their belief go away • Stanislavski style of theatre was realism. He wanted them to feel the performance could happen in everyday life.
However, the play itself is specifically meant to be presented to an Elizabethan era audience, despite some of the more modern adaptations of the play. As such, the conversation in Act IV Scene III between Hamlet and Claudius as to where Polonius’ body is hidden, is meant to target the original Elizabethan audience by using religious allusions that would have been better understood by such an audience along with the treatment of the mentally ill, and the relations between England and Denmark. To begin with, the religious allusions that Shakespeare uses in this scene are difficult to fully understand today, unless one has a good knowledge of history, however, they would have been easily understood back when the play was first performed. In Act IV Scene III, Shakespeare deliberately has Hamlet voice a pun about the Diet of Worms, which would have been much more known to a portion of the Elizabethan audience, as religion played a much larger role in the world back then, especially in a country where there had been so many changes in religion such as England. Similarly, he also alludes to the fact that the Diet of Worms is the “best of all diets”, as it was about what the Holy Roman Empire -- who England was briefly tied to by the marriage of Elizabeth’s older sister Mary to Philip I of Spain, who was the son of Charles V, who was
Today's contemporary theatres produce a variety of plays and musicals that attract very different audiences. Theatrical productions may also involve other types of performance exhibitions, which include improvisational, skit and parody performances which involve varying levels of involvement from off-camera staff or assistants in order to create the