William Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1599-1601) has successfully continued to engage audiences through its dramatic treatments of soliloquies and asides. It has retained value as being worth critical study in both an Elizabethan and modern context – this may be said due to its mirroring of human nature in society, thereby depicting the thematic concepts of struggle and disillusionment. Shakespeare’s use of dramatic and language techniques, consisting of much great symbolism and metaphorical language, illustrates the dramatic irony and action of textual integrity in Hamlet. Thus these salient notions are achieved through Hamlet’s speech directed towards a society that reflects both an Elizabethan and modern contemporary context, whereby audiences reflect upon the depiction of humanity’s struggle in a disillusioned reality. In Hamlet’s third soliloquy, there are echoes of struggle and disillusionment which are illustrated as important concepts in dealing with Shakespearean language throughout the play of HAMLET.
"To what extent have the connections you have made between your two texts studied in this module demonstrated how shared ideas impact differently on individuals in different contexts?" "The play Richard II dares to imagine what it is to have supreme power…. And then lose it", a quote from Derek Jacobi in Shakespeare Uncovered, as he revisits the role he played nearly 30 years ago, Richard II. Comparing this documentary to Shakespeare’s work “Richard II”, has allowed us to consider how the timeless quality in the character of 'Richard II" helps us to understand more about the themes of power and self identity in our contemporary society. The connections in the mentioned themes demonstrates how shared ideas impact differently on individuals in different contexts.
There are also economic and legal factors: Shakespeare is helpfully outside copyright law as well as interesting to adapt. Shakespeare on screen gradually became part of the establishment, reflecting its growing academic respectability. Shakespeare on screen is now in its second century and the reasons why Shakespeare has so long been considered adaptable have been variously discussed. According to Robert Hamilton Ball, Shakespeare’s dramas were considered ideal material for cinema in the early 20th century because the presence of Shakespeare on film raised the contemporary estimation of film. A successful adaptation of Shakespeare must then convey an anxiety of influence (Adaptation form Text to Screen, Screen to Text) P 31) an awareness that the reproduction is both dependent on and
I strongly believe ‘In the process of transforming older texts into contemporary situations, the writing style and contexts change but the same values are reinforced” is false. I introduce Gil Junger’s ’10 Things I Hate about You’ and Shakespeare’s ‘Taming of the Shrew’ which I will be using in this speech today. Taming of the Shrew written approximately 400 years ago is one of Shakespeare’s earliest comedies, sharing many characteristics as his other romantic comedies, such as ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream’. Some characteristics include light-hearted and slapstick humour, disguises and deception and a happy ending in which most of the characters come out satisfied. 10 Things I Hate about You – written 400 years later, is a film directed by Gil Junger.
On the other hand the translation by J. T. Sheppard is a bit outdated, as it was first published in 1920. I believe this gap of 60 years is the main cause of several differences in the two translations. Overall, in Fagles’ translation the language used is more familiar to us and therefore seem colloquial. One can understand the meanings without a second thought. On the other hand, in Sheppard’s translation the language is more like the ones in Shakespearean plays.
In Taming of the Shrew, Lucentio disguises himself as Cambio and does the same thing. Another similarity is that in the play, Petruccio is paid to marry Katherine, where in the modern version, Patrick is also paid to go out with Katherine. In the end, Patrick and Petruccio have “tamed” Katherine because she is now willing to be with a man but before that she is a shrew. PETRUCHIO: Come, come, you wasp, i’faith you are too angry. KATHERINE: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Othello may have been written by William Shakespeare in 1604, but it still contains themes and aspects that make it relevant to audiences today. In Shakespeare’s time, there are characteristics of the play that may have been interpreted quite differently by his audience compared to those in the twenty-first century. These aspects include the origins of Othello; relationships, particularly that between Othello and Desdemona; and, to an extent, the hierarchies that exist in the play. In contrast, there are themes that are still highly relevant to a contemporary audience, who would view them similarly irrespective of the era in which the play is being studied. These include the exploration of human nature and emotion, such as jealousy, manipulation, deception, trust, and innocence; as well as the concept of “good versus evil”.
Brecht consistently uses comedy throughout his play to make a darker point. However, Gold strays from this approach and instead heightens and adds comical elements in an attempt to amuse his audience further. One must remember that Brecht’s original play – even though an entertaining play – was essentially used as a didactic tool and that people chose wether or not they wished to come and view the performance. Gold’s adaptation of the play was made in 1972 and therefore targeted a very different audience – television viewers. It is for this reason that Gold has twisted (and even added to) Bretch’s wry, black humour into high comedy – in a bid to appease and
The idea that “The Fall of the House of Usher” is in part an investigation into sexual motivation and sexual guilt complexes has often been hinted at but never critically pursued as the dominant theme in the tale. But such a reading is at least prepared for in important essays by D. H. Lawrence and Allen Tate which make the essential recognition that “The Fall of the House of Usher” is a “love” story. (1) Lawrence and Tate, however, mistakenly attempt to purge the love concerned of all physical meaning. What they see Usher wanting is possession not of Madeline’s body but her very being (Lawrence, p. 86). Theirs is essentially an anti-biological reading of the tale in which the Poe hero tries in self-love “to turn the soul of the heroine into something like a physical object which can be known in direct cognition” (fate, p. 115).
How could anyone in a clear state of mind desire marriage after being exposed to such a brilliantly devised sequence of bitter-sweet remarks on the institution of marriage? In essence, when the bubble fireworks are out, Wilde’s play reveals its thorns, and they are aimed directly at the institution of marriage. Despite the happy ending, The Importance of Being Earnest takes a perfectly satirical stance in regards to the institution of marriage. Oscar Wilde takes pleasure in deconstructing the pristine facade built around the concept of marriage by Victorian society, and he is fearless in attacking its conventions. Wilde’s play does not celebrate marriage as the ultimate alliance by love, instead preferring to expose its “unstylish” side stained by hypocrisy and shallowness.