For example, Franco Zefferelli produced his film in 1968, and Baz Luhrmann produced his in 1997. Both films provided very different perspectives on Shakespeare's text because of the eras they were set in. The symbolism and imagery in both films were very different because of this factor. Zefferelli’s film remains faithful to Shakespeare’s original play, whereas Luhrmann made a more modern version of it. Zefferelli didn’t change the play much; it was aimed at people who wanted a film that was basically the same as the play, but with better scenery and cuts.
Some people would argue that some ideas or images are simply too dangerous or radical to be displayed to the public. How can this be a sound argument, when the same people enjoy and actively reference their freedom of speech? Think about if influential books, articles, or movies were never published simply because they were too “indecent” or, dare I say it, too “thought-provoking”. Since when did people start sacrificing knowledge and intelligence for safety? It’s apparent that at least some people tend to disagree with censorship, recently being the Supreme Court.
THE ALAMO There have been many movies about the historical events that occurred in the Alamo and The Alamo (2004) is another one of them. This movie has a somewhat of a distortion of the historical events, this is because the traits, mannerisms and the importance that some of the characters are given are inaccurate. Also the place where the battle was fought is faulty. Another reason that made this movie imprecise was that it was one sided. There are also smaller details that are harder to notice, but that are also inaccurate.
An art film is the result of film making which is typically a serious, independent film aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience. The director uses certain narrative and directorial styles to create a sense of confusion in the story. The reasons behind this is because directors try to create a film that doesn't have a clear, goal driven story, which can usually be seen in mainstream films. This is to make the audience more engaged in the film, as they have to concentrate a whole lot more and have to try and uncover what has happened and have to try create a meaning which they thought the film portrayed. Directors use such techniques as Mise en Scene, Movement and montages to express the idea and establish the specific quality of his work.
While this is being said, it also causes to audience to question the reliability of the film as they to are doing the same thing that they are reprimanding Fox about. They are only telling one side of the story and this leaves the audience feeling wary of the truthfulness of the film. The audience cannot deny though that they film reveals a number of issues which show the unethical practices that are committed by Fox and are going to be further discussed in this essay. One of the major issues presented by Outfoxed was the Political bias of the Network. Fox is a strong Republican supporter and tried to
The point of the authors in this essay is to show that the facts (ie. statistics) do not always confirm the popular impression in history. In this case, specifically, that Steinbeck’s ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ is a story about the unusual -- not the usual. Do you think our popular culture (books, TV, movies, even the news media) tends in this direction -- toward the unusual? Support your opinion.
However, if changing information to help in the aide to produce a box office hit is necessary, its typically stated within the opening credits or ending credits of the movie. People in general, should not regard historical movies, or even documentaries, as complete factual interpretations of written past. But in fact educate themselves to more credible information and resources, which are not related to a medium of mass entertainment. Even though there is little to no information regarding this siege that took place within the class textbook, ultimately my choice of movie for this essay against historical content was the Last of the Mohicans. Due to the location of the battle that took place in the movie, which is close to my actual home town, and how the Director really tried to make as much historical factuality as he could from a complete work of fiction.
Both the novel and movie were exceptional. However, a movie can never fully express the book, as it cannot show every single detail outlined by the novel. The movie did a great job at portraying the culture and people of Afghanistan, making the movie seem very vivid. However, the movie left out a bunch of details since the novel is long, and it do not have enough time to show them all. Sometimes this is also a good choice because some details are not that important, so they can be left out with no impact on the movie.
Batman vs. The Punisher Although two movies are based on the beginnings of superheroes, it doesn’t necessarily mean the outcome will please the audience equally. This is the case between the movies The Punisher and Batman Begins, because The Punisher doesn’t give as much to offer in comparison to Batman Begins. These two movies basically talk about the same thing, the birth of a superhero. The Punisher, however, seems to lack some important details that help a movie be of good quality.
I think that the detail and accuracy of a military film makes the story more personal to me because of my background. Also when there is less attention to detail it gets me distracted because I can’t focus on anything else but the characters deficiencies. The Hurt Locker does a fair job of representing the characters in detail. There are some deficiencies in the characters but part of me thinks that the film makers didn’t want it to be strict because not all soldiers are perfect nor do they always adhere to the policies and regulations one hundred percent of the time. The Hurt locker is a military film that takes place in the early years of the war in Iraq.