Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The tragedy of king richard the third
Analytical essay of richard iii
Comparative study between richard iii and looking for richard
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The tragedy of king richard the third
Sir Laurence Olivier's Richard III versus Ian McKellan's Richard III
INTRODUCTION
It seems that modern Hollywood filmmakers are as much in love with Shakespeare's plays as were the 16th century audiences who first enjoyed them. Recent updates of Hamlet (1996) and Romeo and Juliet (1996), both highly successful movies, bear this out, as well as the two best film versions of Richard III; Sir Laurence Olivier's 1954 "period piece", and Ian McKellan's more modern interpretation (1995).
In McKellan's Richard III, we see Britain in the late 1930s, at the end of a savage civil war between the House of York and the House of Lancaster. This version works for a number of reasons: 1) it is made for a modern audience; 2) the social and historical events are part of the audience's collective memory; and 3) the film's conclusion has a stronger dramatic impact.
1. Presentation of the play
"Image is everything", says the commercial, and with movies being almost entirely dependent on the visual element, the phrase rings truer than ever. Olivier's version, along with being a "period piece", is done very much in the classic style; the stage is static, almost as if it were a play and not a movie. The sets are colorful and spacious, but they also have a simplistic feel, as though most of the budget went into the costumes (again, very much in the classic style). The movie brings us almost immediately to the throne room of King Edward IV, recently victorious in England's brutal civil war between the House of York and the House of Lancaster; the "Wars of the Roses". After all but Richard have exited, we hear Richard's opening soliloquy in its' entirety. The setting is very much what we call a "period piece"; the costumes, s...
... middle of paper ...
...miling face as he is consumed by the flames.
In the text of the play itself, Richard's death occurs offstage, although I'm sure that when it is performed, the final duel is seen onstage in all its' glory. McKellan's updating gives us a suitably melodramatic finish, which will no doubt prompt a standing ovation
CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that Lawrence Olivier's version does a better job of sticking with the letter of the play, bringing us all the richness of the Elizabethan dialogue and costume, allowing us to experience the events as they happened.
But McKellan's version, while radically different in presentation and style, is true to the spirit of the play, bringing the intrigue and violence to life in a way undreamed of in Olivier's time. The point I am trying to make is that the new version really is very good, and appeals to modern audiences.
Another major difference in the mood of the play and the movie is in the funeral
Kenneth Branagh creates his own individualistic adaptation of this classic through the use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting. Branagh cut many lines and speeches from the text to better support his interpretation of a more open and informal society of warm-hearted, affectionate characters. Though Shakespeare's mood is more formal, Branagh remains true to the essence of the play as all of the same characters and most of the dialogue are justly included in the film. Although distinct differences can be made between Branagh’s film and Shakespeare’s written work, they both share a common denominator of good old-fashioned entertainment; and in the world of theater, nothing else really matters.
John Patrick Shanley creates a movie as a whole I feel was more informative than the play. In the play you have 4 characters Sister Aloysius, Father Flynn, Sister James, and Mrs. Muller. While the movie introduces a few other characters, for instance the children. For me the children made a difference because they for one made me understand what kind of kids Sister James was dealing with. I really thought that being able to see the way Father Flynn interacted with all of the young boys including Donald Muller was really helpful when trying to draw your conclusion of Father Flynn versus when reading it your left to imagine for instance; what some of the kids are like. The way the book sets you up your left leaning to Father Flynn being exactly what Sister Aloysius accuses him to be. We also get to see how sister James interacts with the kids and how Sister Aloysius influences her to change the way she deals with and teaches her class.
This contributes to a very villainous role. Richard begins his journey to the throne. He manipulates Lady Anne. into marrying him, even though she knows that he murdered her first. husband.
In conclusion, The Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet was the most successful because it was very similar to the original play of Hamlet written by Shakespeare. The film version of Hamlet featuring Kenneth Branagh is a more successful production of Shakespeare’s play of Act IV according to its setting, editing choices and character portrayal. The two film versions of Act IV of Hamlet have many differences and similarities. Therefore the adaptation of Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet brings the audience closer to the play.
During class we have reviewed many versions of the play Hamlet. The two movie versions that I chose to compare on the play Hamlet are the David Tennant version and the Kenneth Branagh version. I chose these two versions because these were the two that most interested me. I believe that some scenes from each movie were better than the other, but overall I liked these two versions just as equally. The three main scenes that stood out to me that I will be comparing are ‘Ophelia’s Mad Scene’, the ‘Hamlet Kills Polonius’ scene, and Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ scene.
The premise of the plot is held in tact but the setting is shifted several hundred years, to the 1970s. The characters’ names even remain familiar. The dialogue is contemporary English yet you can still recognize the similarities in conversation. Major themes from the original work – revenge, guilt, self doubt, fate, and prophecy still exist in this manipulated adaptation. “He (Morrissette) is able to make an interesting point about how the difference between tragedy and comedy is often how the material is viewed by the audience”.(Berardinelli)
Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, is a tragic love story about two young lovers who are forced to be estranged as a result of their feuding families. The play is about their struggle to contravene fate and create a future together. As such, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood would try and emulate Shakespeare’s masterpiece. This had been done before in many films. Prominent among them were, Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 “Romeo and Juliet” and Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 “William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet.” Both films stay true to the themes of Shakespeare’s original play. However, the modernised Luhrmann film not only maintains the essence of Shakespeare’s writings, Luhrmann makes it relevant to a teenage audience. This is done through the renewal of props and costumes, the reconstruction of the prologue and the upgrading of the setting, whilst preserving the original Shakespearean language. Out of the two, it is Luhrmann who targets Romeo & Juliet to a younger audience to a much larger extent than Zeffirelli.
One notable difference between William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Julie Taymor’s film version of the play is the altered scenes that made quite a difference between the play and the movie version. This difference has the effects of creating a different point of view by altering the scenes affected the movie and how Taymor felt was necessary by either by keeping or deleting certain parts from the play. I use “Altered Scene” in the way of how Julia Taymor recreates her own point of view for the movie and the direction she took in order to make the audience can relate to the modern day film. I am analyzing the way that the altered scenes changes to make a strong impression on the audiences different from the play. This paper will demonstrate
The performance of both versions is clear, the performance of the characters and everything we know of its pre subsequently play frames in history where all the superstructure of Western bourgeois power virtually vanishes environment.
Characterisation is vastly different in the film when compared to the play. This, however, is done so as to make more sense to a modern
The modern setting naturally incorporates the use of modern inventions, modern clothing, and modern behavior. These factors change the audience’s perspective and analyzation from the original play to the movie. For example, the use of bicycles made transportation easier and the running away seem less impossible. The modern clothing took away from the inherent magic, much like changing the setting originally affected this. The behavior of the characters that changed due to this setting change, however, disturbed the original emotions and analyzations one might make from reading the work as intended, through William Shakespeare’s original
The dramatic style and preparation of the theatre in this movie is of the baroque style. The Baroque style is a period following the Renaissance, from 1600 to 1750, and is characterized by dramatic expression and performances or theatrical shows. There are several examples of dramatic expressions during the movie. During the preparation of the play, there is a fight. For example, when Mercutio fights Romeo.
William Shakespeare has provided some of the most brilliant plays to ever be performed on the stage. He is also the author of numerous sonnets and poems, but he is best known for his plays such as Hamlet, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Romeo and Juliet. In this essay I would like to discuss the play and movie, "Romeo and Juliet", and also the movie, Shakespeare in Love.
William Shakespeare and the new millennium seem to be diametrically opposed, yet his works are having a renaissance of their own after 400 years in the public domain. Why have some major film producers revisited his works when their language and staging would seem to be hopelessly outdated in our society?Perhaps because unlike modern writers, who struggle with political correctness, Shakespeare speaks his mind with an uncompromising directness that has kept its relevance in this otherwise jaded world.