The 1952 And 1986 Adaptation Of Oscar Wilde's Play

The 1967 film by Mike Nicoles “The Graduate” is about Benjamin Braddock, a recent college graduate, who is at a crossroads in his life. He is caught between adolescence and adulthood searching for the meaning of his upper middle class suburban world of his parents. He then began a sexual relationship with the wife of his father’s business partner, Mrs. Robinson. Uncomfortable with his sexuality, Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson continue an affair during which she asked him to stay away from her daughter, Elaine. Things became complicated when Benjamin was pushed to go out with Elaine and he falls in love with her. Mrs. Robinson sabotaged the relationship and eventually the affair between Mrs. Robinson and

The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast two movies made about Hamlet. I will present and discuss different aspects of the version directed by Kenneth Branagh to that of Franco Zefirelli. During this paper you will be presented with my opinions in reference to determining which version of Hamlet best reflects the original text by Shakespeare. I will end this paper with my belief and explanation of which movie is true to the original play.

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

Michael Hoffman’s 1999 film version of Shakespeare's midsummer night’s dream was able to modify the audience experience of the play. Michael Hoffman had successfully turned the play into a film and was able to show a visible expression of the characters to the audience. He had also made some changes, like the settings and made his version modernized. Though the film was based on the Shakespeare’s play, the audience’s experience is still different.

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.

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 differences in styles of language truly brings alive the plays' various characters, from the lowliest drawer to the noblest knight. The playwright's audience would have been composed of a similarly diverse spectrum of society, from the groundlings at the foot of the stage, to the members of the court in attendance, and these disparate members of the audience might very well have come away from the plays with different interpretations of

“Beware of your stereotypes and prejudices, they can trap you in a box and make you miss what life has to offer you”─Med Yones. One has to see past the stereotypes in life, just as one should do for A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare. This literature masterpiece entails a quarrel of a pair of lovers caught entangled in a treacherous web of tainted love and magic. This comedy, viewed through the archetypal literary criticism lens─which focuses on the stereotypical aspects─, makes the audience wonder and push beyond the boundaries of the stereotypes with the tale. Combined with its other elements, A Midsummer Night's Dream is more entertaining and meaningful when viewed through the archetypal literary criticism lens; such as in Act 1: scene 1; Act 3: scene 2; and Act 5: scene 1 in both the printed text and the 1999 film versions.

The overall dramatic meaning of this play has been successfully shown by the elements of drama. The

Hamlet is a very well-known play across the world. Many students have been required to read the play in school. Although the poem has been read by many students, student usually don’t further their experience with Hamlet by watching the movie. There are many remakes of the play in movie form, new movies have been evolved since the play was originally made. There are movies that follow the play and the time period of the play and then there are newer or more modern versions of the play. The comparison being made in this paper is, the originally play versus the 2009 movie version of Hamlet.

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.

"Nowadays the plays' meaning is usually blurred by the fact that the actor plays to the audiences hearts. The figures portrayed are foisted on the audience and are falsified in the process. Contrary to present custom they ought to be presented quite coldly, classically and objectively. For they are not matter for empathy; they are there to be understood and politely added

In the present context many of Wilde’s contextual jokes in the play may not be as humorous in the present context, thus it is understandable why Parker has placed more emphasis on the farcical jokes, which would appeal to a wider audience. When Wilde wrote the play it was at a time when literature was becoming more widely available for all citizens, wealthy or poor. This gave Wilde room to write as he did, making a mockery of the upper class, as the lower class would enjoy it. However that was over a century ago, and in the modern context people may not find this as relevant or quite as amusing. However, the farcical elements of the play, such as the plot, are the kind of jokes that can be understood in either context. Therefore, Parker has not focused on the contextual jokes, and instead on the farcical jokes. It is the farce nature of the plot that Parker has constructed his romantic comedy around. While this enables the film to be appreciated by a wider audience, it no longer embodies Wilde’s criticisms of the upper class, which was the crux of Wilde’s play. However, Parker not only stops at one overembellished farcical plot, but he does the same with an extended sub-plot.

“Ordinary people” everywhere are faced day after day with the ever so common tragedy of losing a loved one. As we all know death is inevitable. We live with this harsh reality in the back of our mind’s eye. Only when we are shoved in the depths of despair can we truly understand the multitude of emotions brought forth. Although people may try to be empathetic, no one can truly grasp the rawness felt inside of a shattered heart until death has knocked at their door. We live in an environment where death is invisible and denied, yet we have become desensitized to it. These inconsistencies appear in the extent to which families are personally affected by death—whether they

Undergoing ceaseless impediments, Stuart maintains a demeanor of fortitude as he battles and drudges his way to staying alive and finding himself. For example, Stuart demonstrates fearlessness when he protects his new feathered friend from his nemesis, the house cat. As Stuart witnesses the cat approaching Margalo as she sleeps, he thinks, “’This is the finest thing I have ever done’…and he shot the arrow straight into the cat’s ear” (55). Stuart not only stays up and keeps watch over his new friend when he is very ill, which demonstrates mental and physical strength, he also arms himself with a bow and arrow against an animal larger than himself. Cats are known predators of small animals, and they are especially fond of birds and mice, making