The Comedy Of Errors: Antipholus Of Syracuse

I will be honest with you I had a lot of trouble enjoying the play, like I said the dialect gave me trouble, plus my seats were not that great. I did however like the movie quite a bit, but I realize I am a product of a different generation as well. I have been brought up around TV and movies rather than plays

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

I was particularly struck by the acting of Gracie Sartin. Her fearless approach to so many elements of the play – whether it was being hit on the head with an ironing board, hitting another costar with the ironing board, or giving one of her characters (Villian) an accent - was incredibly interesting to watch. Despite the fact that she portrayed six different people, she embodied them so well that I did not see Gracie in them. I saw only the characters she was portraying. The other actors were also successful in that ability. I think that achievement, combined with the success of the way the time constraints were embraced, added greatly to the success of the play.

Overall it held my attention. The comedy injected into this play allowed for the more poignant messages to be driven home. I could relate to the respective arguments of the two men. It makes you

I found the play to be far superior in comparison to the original film version as the movie's writing glorified modern American consumerism. A post war financial boom brought a great amount of advertising and promotion, and the movie was overflowing with blatant celebration of products. The presence of sexism as well of the obvious lack of racially diverse main characters, was a big problem for me in my terms of likability of the movie. The play was able to strip itself of the gaudiness/lack of diversity and that left room for a brilliantly crafted sub-plot with a well rounded cast and smartly written script.

The stage background was very realistic and rustic. They made the house in the background seem very real. Not only that, but they didn't have too many props on the stage. They also placed the props on the whole stage, then the props weren't all clustered together. The costumes that the actors were wearing were very minimal. I feel that they did a good job putting the whole scene of the play really well. Also the actors were very good with expression and trying to use up the whole stage and as many props as

In conclusion, I thought this play was a great choice for me to see at the theatre. I was glad I went to see it because it made me realize that your opinion doesn’t have to be the most popular opinion. I need to stand up for what I believe in and that is what this play taught me. I do prefer a comedy over a tragedy and I am upset with the ending but I cannot complain because I enjoyed this play very

One of Shakespeare's earliest plays (its first recorded performance in December 1594), The Comedy of Errors has frequently been dismissed as pure farce, unrepresentative of the playwright's later efforts. While Errors may very well contain farcical elements, it is a complex, layered work that draws upon and reinterprets Plautine comedy. Shakespeare combines aspects of these Latin plays with biblical source material, chiefly the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians. While Menaechmi is the most frequently cited classical source for Errors, Plautus' Amphitruo is just as relevant an influence; Shakespeare's treatment of identity and its

I thought the movie had an excellent cast, all great actors that did a wonderful job. Kenneth Branagh made a good Hamlet. I liked Hamlet’s character and hoped the best for him, even though I did not agree with some of the things he did. I felt badly for Hamlet, as I also did Ophelia when she took her own life out of misery. I think it is sad they did not end up together; but then again that’s the point, it’s a tragedy. I loved the original King, although he wasn’t in the movie much in life form, he seemed like a fair and wise King. The actor who played the king did a fantastic job in the foggy woods scene. All in all the entire cast was very convincing, so much that you either came to love or hate the characters.

In his essay in Bad Shakespeare, Anthony Dawson seems to disagree with this interpretation of the story. He states that this universal and idealized approach to the play is ineffective for a number of reasons. He

The set and props where very compact and were built and moved on and off by the cast because they are designed to be transferred by one person. The props where all cleverly done, for instance they made a bridge out of three ladders, a train out of four boxes and a house from just one door. The door I thought was one of the best props used because the cast managed to make a fairly small stage appear huge just by moving the door and pretending each time that it was a new room every time they passed through it. At one point in the play Richard and Pamela ask the scottish landlords for a sandwich and they come back with a loaf of bread cut in two with one slice of lettuce in the middle, this was such a simple idea but made a big deal and a laugh out of it

Northern Arizona University's Production of Comedy of Errors was, by far the funniest thing I have ever seen, as far as plays go. Now, I haven't seen very many plays in person, but it was still hilarious. It was definitely different from the last play I saw, which was Good People by David Lindsay-Abaire. I enjoyed both plays, but for different reasons. I won't go into detail about Good People, because that was my last paper. This paper is about Comedy of Errors.

This film will provide you with an enhanced understanding of the play. Although, it is misleading at times, this version of the play will keep you fully entertained for the full 111 minutes and provide you with extra knowledge of the play. Casting The majority of the cast was well selected,

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

Follow the story of two identical twins that are lost at sea, only to be found and raised by local fishermen. These two twins names are Antipholus of Ephesus and Antipholus of Syracuse. Antipholus of Syracuse and his slave, Dromio of Syracuse, visit the city of Ephesus, where Antipholus of Ephesus is a prospering citizen. Antipholus of Ephesus’s own wife, Adriana, mistakes Antipholus of Syracuse as her wedded husband and drags him out for dinner leaving Dromio of Syracuse to stand guard at the entrance of Adriana’s house. The issue is resolved when a judge compares the twins and their origins.