Romeo and Juliet can be interpreted in many different ways, even though it follows the same script. Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet and Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet are similar in many ways, however they also differ significantly. Both films are based on Shakespeare’s play and have used the language in which Shakespeare originally wrote the play. However, in Baz Luhrmann’s version, some lines have been cut. Both films provide very different perspectives on Shakespeare's text because of the different eras in which they were set.
We see in addition to this that meaning is not only lost but changed, such as how we view the characters and the impact of their actions due to the variations in the Prologue. Through the loss of informative signs, and overstressed allegories between characters – rather than circumstances – the focal point of the play is also transformed. This results in the film focusing more on Hitler himself, rather than his rise and thus changes the meaning of the play. Technology does however enable Gold to emphasis certain Brechtian tactics in ways the theatre could never have done, adding to and appropriately emphasising this meaning. Brecht consistently uses comedy throughout his play to make a darker point.
[My question is how do these different aspects influence movies and the characters within the movie?] The [films] I’m going to talk about that are affected by these things are Beauty and the Best by Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise, The Blind Side by John L Handcock, and How the Grinch Stole Christmas by Ron Howard. These movies have characters that show fear of abandonment, fear of intimacy, and low self-esteem. Not all the movies have these anxieties in them but they have two or three that are spotted throughout the movies with the characters. [In the Psychoanalytic chapter of the book Critical Theory Today author Lois Tyson does a wondering job defining Fear of Intimacy.]
Examples of the different angles used in Citizen Kane were high and low angle shots. Throughout the movie, Orson Welles wanted to depict William Hearst as a powerful and demanding man, and Orson used low angle shots to do so. Low angle shots are used to make the audience feel like they are “looking up” to someone and overpowered. They also use high angle shots to show how powerless Susan Kane was with Charles Kane. These angles were constantly used throughout the movie to give more insight on the different characters and portray the dominance of Charles Kane and innocence of Susan Kane.
“Joe Gould’s Secret” is a nonfiction story written by Joseph Mitchell, and a movie based on this book is also called “Joe Gould’s Secret” directed by Stanley Tucci. In today’s times a lot of movies are based on a written literature. Many students watch the movie instead of reading the book maybe because it’s more enjoyable but for some they take it as an easy way out. It’s obvious that it’s easier to watch the movie then reading the book but the movie lacks the details that are present in the book. I think if a director of a movie is basing a movie on the book they should add a lot of the little details that lead up to the climax of the story that were present in the book.
In order to get a successful play of Hamlet, one needs to thrive on the screen or stage. It is one of the most difficult of the Shakespearian tasks that many actors have aimed to achieve or at least, obtain something unique and fresh to the key character. It could be said without any doubt that Hamlet “brazenly solicits interpretation”, established by recent actors including Mel Gibson, Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh, in the medium of film. All the way through the 20th Century, film editions have delicately developed both the character of Hamlet and have cultivated a performance of the play, in some very artistic and thrilling ways. Film directors Franco Zeffirelli, Michael Almereyda and Kenneth Branagh have transformed “Hamlet” to altering levels of victory on the screen while accomplishing this in the course of deserted differences in analysis and through taking into consideration very different creative ideas.
Hollywood is an industry constantly trying to push the envelope of sensitive subjects that may be too sensitive for people to talk about in their day-to-day lives. Whether a movie is made about drugs, sex, violence, religion, sex, alcoholism, torture, there are so many topics that filmmakers and movie producers have used in their films. In some cases these subjects are talked to about only to bring attention to this specific subject. The goal is to make the audience actually think about this subject instead of leaving in the back of their mind. Sometimes the filmmaker takes it upon himself to create a movie about this subject only to “bridge the gap”, try and let the viewer realize that maybe what is being portrayed in this film isn’t as bad as the viewer may believe.
Throughout the film version of Proof, what happens to Catherine is very similar to what happens to her in Auburn’s play. However, the movie is different from the play because it shows the characters in a different light, it takes place in many different settings, and it adds more scenes than the play does. The story lines between the play and the movie have different plots, characters, scenery, and music/sound effects. You will want to read the play to get the best scenario, and leave the movie for the ones who really do not appreciate reading. First of all, the plot of the movie was somewhat similar to the play.
Both Oedipus the King and Minority Report use eyes as a motif, they both are tragedies, and they both have similar characters. These two works may look, at first glance, like two completely different performances. However, with closer analysis, it is clear, that they are very much alike. Spielberg’s Minority Report has many parallels to Oedipus the King, and among them are the use of eyes, and the tragic aspect to them both. However, they are slightly different, in that Spielberg had to make some adjustments to the plot in order to suit a more modern and tougher audience.
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”.