Our original ideas for the piece were to chose pieces of the script which we thought were relevant and which would then later fit in with our improvised part of the piece. Our group sat down and discussed which bits were necessary to the piece as a whole and which bits were not. We then took these parts and put them all together so that we had our final script. We then had to plan our improvisation. This involved an intense brainstorming session where we came up with the final idea.
As Romano, Allison, and Paige Albiniak say in their article “Funny Business” “It's what the people in those situations say and do that's funny. Or not. It's the talent of the writers and actors that make it work.” The people that are chose for the roles in sitcoms make or break the show. As viewers today we want characters that grow and evolve with the show. The cast has to make their characters their own; transform it from some writer’s imagination of a person into a real person with a personality and opinions.
To start with, in the original version as well as Branagh’s version of “Hamlet”, the “To be or not to be” soliloquy comes before Hamlets encounter with Ophelia, where as in Zeffirelli’s version of the play, Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy comes after the scene where he speaks with Ophelia. Also, Zeffirelli’s version doesn’t completely follow the original script word for word. I personally feel that Zeffirelli’s version is better in both of these regards. As far as the scene sequences, I feel that Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” had become more relevant after his encounter with Ophelia because that encounter only added to his frustration and broken heart, which could have helped further explain his reasoning for considering whether life is worth living or not. In regard to the faithfulness of the original language in the script, I believe that it is better to differentiate a small bit as Zeffirelli did.
What interests you most? I find it thought-stimulating to ponder the content of the written play itself and its shortened movie version. Does an adequate shortened movie means that certain parts of the written play was unnecessary or not important enough? This leads to the discussion of whether the written play or the movie gives the most authentic and accurate portrayal of the Laramie incident. What strikes you most?
It is a collection of 3 stories each with a dark twist and an intro and an outro. The script is based around storytelling with narrators in each story as well as characters. We chose Kneehigh as our Practitioner as we could use Kneehighs use of audience interaction in our play. For example, in the intro, an idea was that we could all be dotted around different areas of the room when saying our lines and delivering them to a particular member of the audience. Our group work together well to produce a coherent style and are not afraid to experiment, take chances and eventually change or reject ideas which is an important factor in performing Kneehigh Theatre.
Snagged Responding Task Introduction: -Introduce the play; who wrote it, what it is about, the themes, when it was performed etc. -Your thesis: Has the director been successful in his manipulation of the elements of drama to create dramatic meaning (ie was the play good..?) -Outline what you will discuss in the essay: elements of drama, acting skills, overall success of the production. Elements of Drama Tension: What is dramatic tension? What are the types of tension evident in the play?
If we would have stick to only one writer or source we would have only learn one side of the presented issue and taking into consideration our naive nature some would most likely believe that the author is right. Those are people who follow others and never question authority and are perfectly content in their comfort zone. Why bother to change things when everything is going well, one might ask. However, some people when they come across ideas that they do not agree with try to fight for their rights and let their voices to be heard. Some people challenge societies’ beliefs but those are few.
The structure of a film has a great impact on the reaction from the viewers. There are two main aspects of a film that make it have the reaction from audiences. One is the director style which contains everything the directors choose to do to make the film flow like a book. There are directors who are known as auteurs. This is when people brainstorm on film ideas of their own and basically does everything from writing the script and picking their own actors to supervising the writing to make sure it is to their standards.
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.
He is a genuine character, honest and projecting his true personality. Not being able to live life with joy or pleasure, refusing to drink at all, criticising or judging, having new experiences despite the outcome are all examples of a constrained man. An interesting point is that you are not necessarily born being this kind of person. There is always room for change and it will never be too late to accept that change. However, it cannot come to a character as an epiphany.