Death Of A Salesman Movie Vs Play Analysis

Making a movie to be watch worthy for a good book is almost rare. Nevertheless, it is common to hear those who like reading to pries a movie, which made based on a book that they read. Yet, when it comes to William Shakespeare, it is different because the plies that he wrote are just a ready script for acting. Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays because of many reasons and one of them is that the real story was a critical point in history. In fact, the play reflects an actual occasion of Shakespeare’s time and that is one way this great writer express the concerns of the people about the succession, as Professor of English literature at University of St. Thomas, Ann Bradley says. In this essay, I will examine some of the

How can two people watch or read the same story and yet, interpret it completely differently? Does it have to do with the author’s intentions, or maybe it has to do with the viewers’ own backgrounds and ideologies? Whatever the case may be, viewing one piece of work can lead to a wide array of opinions and critiques. It is through the diversity of such lenses that Death of a Salesman, by Arthur Miller has become one of the most well-known plays in modern history. There are many different ways in which a play can be criticized, however, criticisms from the approaches of a Marxist and reader-response will be utilized to further dissect Death of a Salesman. Marxist criticism sees pieces of works as a struggle between different socioeconomic classes; what better way to see Miller’s play than for what it is at face value, the struggle of a middle-class man trying to achieve the American dream (1750). On the other hand, a reader-response criticism comes from either an objective or subjective view; in this case Death of a Salesman will be viewed with a subjective lens based on Willy’s deteriorating mental health (1746).

The characters in the cast are somewhat different in each of these movies as would be expected. Mel Gibson is very good in the role of Hamlet in Zefirelli's version. When he insults the king the insults are more pronounced and easy to understand. He also play's the part of Hamlet's insanity very well. This is the favorite part of the character for me. I think his face and presentation make it more realistic than when I read the play. Gibson was able to add suspense to the movie while chasing after the ghost with his sword held as a cross. Glen

Many people prefer the book version of a story rather than the film it tries to become. This is due to the fact that the author’s intent of his own story is much more intriguing and familiar to its readers than just another film version. However, some versions portray the story better than others. Hollywood seems to have taken up the responsibility of creating complicated and compelling characters on screen. Unfortunately, doing so can easily take away a story’s rich, necessary detail. For instance, Shakespeare’s Othello has a few different movie versions of his story. Both movies, the 1990 version by Trevor Nunn and the 1995 version by Oliver Parker, are great productions carried by strong casts. However, there are areas in which the movie and the play differ. These differences tend to interpret the film in a different way compared to what Shakespeare intended. The film portrayals of Shakespeare’s Othello by Parker and the other by Nunn both display the character of Desdemona in very different ways. The Nunn version of this play did a much better job of portraying Desdemona as Shakespeare

With any comparison between a play and its movie counterpart there are bound to be major differences and key similarities between

The considerable characters of A Streetcar remain relatively indistinguishable in both versions of the work. The play and film versions of the characters were an exact match. The seamlessness allowing the stars, who acted as these characters, to act in both play and film

Another significant change is in the character portrayal. In the play, Parris seemed to be overly egocentric and self-conscious. He is still thus in the movie, but is more whiny, and annoyingly so. Putnam, also, seems to have a personality change. In the play, his personality is not so domineering as in the movie, where he is bordering on psychotic. His role seems to be made larger and more significant in the movie, which presumably accounts for the change in character representation.

I compared Act One, Scene 2, in the play and the film. The setting in the play is on a Saturday morning, and house cleaning is in process at the Youngers. In the film, the setting is the same as play, with lighting and costumes. The plot in the play is when Mrs. Younger gets the insurance check of $10,000. In the film, the plot is the same, but includes music not mentioned in the play. The dialogue in the film has some deletions from the original text, with new dialogue added throughout the scene.

In Summary, with these three examples it is shown that the play and the movie contrast quite a bit. Most of the story line and the dialogue were very similar to the original story in the movie but some things were changed, possibly to shorten the story to be able to make

The similarities between the play and the movie are both show the struggles of being a lower class in an upper-class world (at the time). The movie expresses

The story ‘Death of a Salesman’ written by Miller focuses on a man doing all he can to allow him and his family to live the American dream. Throughout the story it is shown how the Loman’s struggle with finding happiness and also with becoming successful. Throughout their entire lives many problems come their way resulting in a devastating death caused by foolishness and the drive to be successful. Ever since he and his wife, Linda, met she has been living a sad and miserable life, because she has been trying support his unachievable goals. Also by him being naïve put his children’s lives in jeopardy and also made them lose sight of who they really were. Miller uses the Loman family to show how feeling the need to appear a certain way to the public and trying to live a life that is not really yours can turn into an American nightmare.

Although the movie did tell the baseline story of the play I don’t think the movie captured what Shakespeare would have liked it to. The story of the play followed the originally play but I think the overall mental image and picture has more to do with the story than the story itself. The movie didn’t capture any of the original settings, or anything in that nature. It kept the story line, but then decided to take its own twist and turn on the vision of the play. The movie version did not in vison what Shakespeare would have wanted or tried to portray in his original

The movie however had some weak points that pulled it away from shakespeare's original intent with the script. There was a lot more emphasis on sexuality in the movie than Shakespeare's play intended. There is also

Comparing a play to its movie adaptation is something that is hard to do since there is no tangible way a person can capture the original then change it to make the movie version of it up to par to the original. From the original play of A Midsummer’s Night Dream that was created by Shakespeare in the movie version of it created by Michael Hoffman, there are many similarities and differences that are in the movie some are very stark while others are very subtle differences.

Overall I think the actors and everyone involved in the making of this play did a very good job, even though I liked the performance of some actors better than others. The fact that this translation of the play was a more modern version original play made it more fun to watch according to me. Unfortunately, the fact that I was not able to fully understand the actors’ dialog throughout the play made it less entertaining and agreeable for me to