| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "KENNETH BRANAGH VERSION ADO": |
|
|
Kenneth Branagh's Version of "Much Ado About Nothing", 2006.
An analysis of Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of William Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing".
1,380 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes and summarizes the plot and characters in the film adaptation of William Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". The paper also explains the play's theme that something so innocent can be quickly turned into woe by deceivers.
From the Paper
"The idyllic scene contrasts sharply with the next scene, where the MEN enter, galloping atop of fierce, snorting steeds that thunder down the hill side, the men sweaty, disheveled uniforms sport triumphant smiles or stern determined gazes, as the prince's army returns from a successful battle. Pure animal testorone, in the most positive sense, that gets the blood circulating and makes the women swoon, even in this day."
| |
|
Kenneth Branagh's "Othello", 2002.
Analysis of the film version of "Othello" by Kenneth Branagh, with an emphasis on his interpretation of Iago.
1,138 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Kenneth Branagh's interpretation of the character, Iago, from Shakespeare's "Othello" differs from Shakespeare's original intention. The paper contrasts Branagh's portrayal of Iago as one who is fierce, dead serious and even brooding, with Shakespeare's Iago as one who is less serious and more intent on enjoying the hunt of Othello. The paper also discusses the movie version's emphasis on providing a motive for Iago's vengeance, while Shakespeare actually provides very little explanation of Iago's motivation.
From the Paper
"Kenneth Branagh?s interpretation of Iago lends a very different feel to the text than one might get simply by reading it. His portrayal of Iago is typically dead serious. There seems to be no smirk, no joy, in his undoing of Othello, rather he seems almost sulky, almost duty bound. Even if, in the action of the movie, he momentarily assumes a smile, in soliloquy that smile is immediately swept away to a sullen grimace. This frowning Iago is an unusual interpretation of Shakespeare?s most notorious villain. From the text, one might assume that Iago enjoys the chase, enjoys the hunt of Othello, but the movie depicts it very much as a fierce competition. Part of this can be seen in the chessboard theme that runs throughout the movie?Iago?s attempt to undo Othello is not some freewheeling intellectual exercise, but a disciplined competition."
| |
|
Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V", 1991.
This paper compares Shakespeare's original play and Kenneth Branagh's 1989 filmic version "Henry V": Theme, characters and action.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 1 source, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" William Shakespeare's Henry V and Kenneth Branagh's movie version from 1989 are certainly similar works, because they derive from the same text, yet by looking at the basic play and the movie's mise en scene it is possible to see that Branagh has used the Bard's words to serve his own images in bringing out a contemporary message.
Branagh's film version is not the celebratory work that Laurence Olivier's 1944 British motion picture was: Olivier directed and starred in this movie as the English and the Allies were close to victory against the Germans. Branagh is true to his generation and their anti-war sentiments that were created during the Vietnam War of the 1960s. Therefore, the recent movie version shows the real price of war--the violence and bloodshed.
| |
|
Masculine Revisioning in Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", 2002.
This paper detects the deviations Kenneth Branagh instills into Mary Shelley's seminal work in his 1994 film adaptation reflect his own attempts at "masculinizing" her seminal work.
3,155 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The essay uses psychoanalysis as a method of comparative discourse, in order to see more clearly the variances and motives between Shelley's and Branagh's texts. The author claims that while Branagh's adaptation affords perhaps the most accurate retelling of the plot of Shelley's text, the lens by which he interprets the tale bends the focus, elaborating upon certain underlying narratives while suppressing or overlooking others. The essay maintains that "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" demonstrates an attempt to revise and rewrite the story in order to place emphasis on more culturally masculine concerns and anxieties, and is far from being the definitive cinematic imagining of Shelley's work. Moreover, he feels that by looking closely at key deviations in Branagh's interpretation and presentation, one can observe a systematic re-envisioning which seeks to displace and usurp Shelley's argument against masculine ideals.
From the Paper
"Stephen Behrendt contends that Victor Frankenstein and his monster reflect Mary Shelley's anxiety over the public role of authorship in a male-dominated society. As objects of discourse, women were continually reminded of their "proper" and "natural" place in private familial and public extrafamilial interaction" (Behrendt 71). Victor's "unnatural" process of creation a man assuming the maternal role of biological life-giver mirrors Shelley's socially constructed sense that she behaved unnaturally in assuming the role of artistic creator. Victor's hysteria and the Creature's disfigurement embody Shelley's horror at her own articulation a horror unconsciously generated by the dictums of a patriarchal world. Victor demonstrates his hysteria when he confesses that "a kind of enthusiastic frenzy had blinded me to the horror of my employment; my mind was intently fixed on the consummation of my labour, and my eyes were shut to the horror of my proceedings" (Shelley 162). "
| |
|
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" ( Kenneth Branagh ) and "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley, 1995.
This paper compares the film director Kenneth Branagh's and book author Mary Shelley's depictions of "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and "Frankenstein" respectively: Characters, relationships, plot, focus, images, pacing and style
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The recent motion picture version of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein hews closely to the plot of the novel while failing to capture its essential purpose. The full title of the movie is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but the possessive does not mean that this version can be considered mary Shelley's vision. Janet Maslin of the New York Times notes this when she writes that the film will not strike anyone as chiefly Mary Shelley's invention. Its principal architect is Kenneth Branagh. . . [who] takes on the godlike, idealistic young scientist's role while also directing this "Frankenstein" as an overheated romantic fable .
An examination of the book and the film shows where the attitudes ... "
| |
|
Branagh?s "Much Ado About Nothing", 2002.
Looking at Kenneth Branagh's version of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" and how it differs from the original play.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 0 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines in how the film version, director Kenneth Branagh takes viewers into a far different Messina than what is generally interpreted from the play's text. From the costumes to the background settings, from the addition of scenes to the emphasis on certain characters, Branagh reserves his right to interpret ?Much Ado About Nothing? as he sees fit. This paper sorts through these differences and outlines and details the logic and reasoning behind Branagh?s actions.
From the Paper
"Film direction and production of plays allows the viewer to see with their own eyes the relationships between characters, the focus of the themes, and the other aspects of plays such as costumes, the representations of the players, and so forth. In other words,the viewers are given the opportunity to let their imagination and curiosity come to fruition. When I read a play I try to visualize what I am reading and really explore my imagination to see the action as it is occurring in my mind. Often times however, my imagination is shattered somewhat when I see the film production. Such is the case with Branagh?s ?Much Ado About Nothing?. "
| |
|
Three Film Versions Of Hamlet, 1999.
Compares styles, plot emphases, characterizations, atmosphere, design, the setting of the 1948 Laurence Olivier, the 1990 Franco Zeffirelli and the 1996 Kenneth Branagh versions.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 7 sources, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Film critics point out from time to time how much the director brings to a film and that if two directors were given the same script to shoot, the results would be very different. Filmmakers are almost never given the same script to shoot, but an exception can be found in plays based on Shakespeare where the same essential script is indeed used and where decisions regarding such elements as costume and set design along with visual style can produce works with very different attitudes based on the same initial material. This can be seen in three versions of Hamlet, the Laurence Olivier version from 1948, the Franco Zeffirelli version from 1990, and the Kenneth Branagh version from 1996. The films have very different "looks" as well as giving emphasis to different aspects of the plot, the characterizations, and other elements, and watching the three ..."
| |
|
Film: ?Much Ado about Nothing?, 2005.
This paper analyzes the problems of transforming Shakespeare to film, especially character portrayal, as demonstrated in Kenneth Branagh's 1993 film adaptation of William Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing".
2,490 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Willam Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing" is an enchanting world filled with believable drama and mostly solid acting; moreover, Branagh was extremely successful in allowing contemporary audiences an aperture by which to understand Shakespeare by weaving the original text into the film in such a way that it becomes both intelligible and unobtrusive. The author points out that the sacrifices in Branagh's adaptation is the play's subtle theme of appearance versus reality; wherein, whether through his addition of new material for the screen or his partial omissions of Shakespeare's text, Branagh has eliminated all of the mystery and ambiguity that Shakespeare crafted into his characters. The paper analyzes the portrayal of the characters Benedick, Beatrice, Claudio and Branagh.
From the Paper
"Branagh's Don Pedro, however, lacks this ambiguity. Another creative liberty with Shakespeare's text is the addition of Denzel Washington's ever-stylish and ever-fearless persona to Don Pedro. As the veteran American actor is cast for the role, he seems slightly out of place. His attitude is always cautious and carefree; the actor easily brings his effortless delivery and commanding persona to the role. This is not always a good thing, however: when Don Pedro offers his hand in marriage to Beatrice, Washington says his lines coolly and nonchalantly, and the delivery offers no possibility that Don Pedro might seek Beatrice for himself. Branagh also diffuses the mystery behind Pedro's wooing of Hero through his directorial choices. When Don Pedro and Claudio walk through the garden, they address each other as equals, wear the same clothing, and talk openly."
| |
|
"Henry V", 2002.
A comparative analysis of the text of Kenneth Branagh's version of William Shakespeare's "Henry V" and the original.
2,525 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 8 sources, $ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues a comparison of Branagh's and Shakespeare's texts, that the power of the film derives from Branagh's awareness of the necessity of translating the text to film as opposed to simply adapting it. It will be shown that Branagh's success in Henry V is a product of his situating the film in a Hollywood cinematic context as opposed to a West End or academic Shakespearean context, and this should not be seen as "selling out", but rather acknowledging Branagh's part in contextualizing the Shakespearean playtext in a new medium.
| |
|
Women in Shakespeare?s Plays, 2004.
This paper discusses women in three Shakespearean plays as presented in the film versions. These include Kenneth Branagh's ?Much Ado about Nothing?, Trevor Dunn?s ?Twelfth Night?, and Baz Luhrman?s ?Romeo and Juliet?.
2,440 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that women play almost every conceivable role in Shakespeare?s plays; however, women cannot be the hero. The author points out that Shakespeare?s plays treat women as a piece of "goods", not worth having if they are not virgins, which was the attitude of the time in which the plays were written. The paper relates that Shakespeare symbolizes Juliet's youth in a display of numerological virtuosity designed to impress upon his audience and readers her unreadiness for adulthood and its attendant complexities.
From the Paper
"In "Much Ado About Nothing" the kind of love that Shakespeare chooses to display is the more realistic kind of love that is displayed more often in society around us. This is shown in the couple of Benedick and Beatrice. These two quick wits are constantly bickering and at each other?s throats, until they are tricked by their friends into each believe the other loves them. At this, all of their criticisms of love and claims to remain unmarried until death go right out the window. Suddenly, they are seized by a desire to be with each other, and their true feelings come out. It shows how love actually works in real life."
| |
|
'Hamlet', 2006.
A look at the female characters in Lawrence Olivier's 1948 production and Kenneth Branagh's 1996 film version of 'Hamlet'.
1,044 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews and discusses the contrast of the female characters in "Hamlet", as portrayed in two 20th century film productions: Lawrence Olivier's 1948 production and Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version.
From the Paper
"Shortly after this sequence, Hamlet bursts into his first soliloquy, and through this "textual transposition," placing the Ophelia scene immediately after the first soliloquy...a direct link is created between Hamlet's sense of sexual betrayal in Gertrude's "dexterous posting" between "incestuous sheets" with his uncle Claudius and Ophelia's refusal of him as a chaste or sexual lover. (Dawson 178; "Hamlet" I.2) The former seems likely, given that the actress who plays Ophelia seems so innocent, blond and docile to her father and brother's wishes, in contrast to the young, sensual brunette Gertrude. Oliver's Gertrude hardly seems old enough to have a mature son, although she also seems anything but innocent in the caressing way she behaves towards Oliver, even at the outset of the film."
| |
|
Shakespeare at the Movies, 2004.
A discussion on the recent adaptations of Shakespeare's plays, "Much Ado About Nothing" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream," directed respectively by Kenneth Branagh (1993) and Michael Hoffman (1999).
1,694 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews the adapted film versions of two of William Shakespeare's plays, "Much Ado About Nothing" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream". The paper explains that both the directors, Branagh and Hoffman, suitably altered the original setting of Shakespeare's plays. Though the scenery and settings are beautiful and picturesque, there are deeper and more purposeful reasons for this change, only one of which is merely to decorate. This can be seen in "Much Ado About Nothing" and more evidently in "A Midsummer Night's Dream". The paper explores the changes made to the modern versions of the plays, claiming that, for the 1990s audience, they offer a more accessible and comprehensible viewing.
From the Paper
"Love, romance and sensuality combine and are fore grounded in the lush and verdant settings of Tuscany in the recent adaptations to Shakespeare's plays Much Ado About Nothing and A Midsummer Night's Dream directed respectively by Kenneth Branagh (1993) and Michael Hoffman (1999). The two directors have purposefully abandoned the original settings of Sicily and Athens to create their versions of the film. They have intentionally used the Tuscan setting for various purposes, such as to enhance the viewer's association and understanding of the film, to portray an atmosphere of gaiety and romance, to subtly reflect issues of the time, to allow them to include certain cinematic elements (such as music of the era) and also to merely decorate."
| |
|
Hamlet, 2001.
Critical analysis of how Kenneth Branagh's 1996 filmed version of the Shakespearean tragedy fails. Visual strategy as not serving the drama.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Kenneth Branagh's film of Shakespeare's Hamlet is remarkable for the use of the entire, uncut text of the play and for its elaborate design. Despite the director's commitment to the full text, however, he shows an even more remarkable lack of faith in the power of the language and acting and, in fact, visually supplements the text at certain points in ways that underline his uneasiness with leaving anything unshown. The visual strategy devised for this film is revealed in many places to be based on reasonable considerations of how the look of the piece can enhance its meanings. But even when the best intentions govern the choices the film fails in almost every respect because the production design, costumes, and art direction seem to be there for their own sake rather than to serve the drama."
| |
|
The Film: "Henry V", 2007.
This paper discusses Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film interpretation of Shakespeare's "Henry V".
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the modern, cinematic environment created by director Kenneth Branagh in his film "Henry V", juxtaposes the poetic language of Elizabethan theater with the visual language of film. The author points out that Branagh's plea for cinematic tolerance is especially apt because "Henry V" is a rather obscure film for an American or even European audience, less likely to be informed and interested in why England fought with France over a little patch of land, long ago. The paper describes the valid historicity of the film, the colors used, the techniques of warfare deployed, its Elizabethan language and modern cinematic techniques and looks at how they are all used used effectively to make this film a successful interpretation of Shakespeare's play.
From the Paper
"The camera work in the princess scene is especially quick and fleeting, as it follows the princess throughout the castle. Although the camera occasionally becomes anchored to Henry's face during a soliloquy, overall, the camera is a kind of peripatetic actor throughout most of "Henry V". The camera follows the horses as they gallop over the field of battle, wildly. The common soldiers on the ground, as when they are storming the castle walls of the city are shown from the ground up. The camera whizzes by the viewer's eye as it pans through time and from France to England and back again..."
| |
|
?Frankenstein?, 2002.
Compares Mary Shelley?s novel with Kenneth Branagh?s 1994 film of the same name.
1,152 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Kenneth Branagh?s 1994 movie "Frankenstein" which is based on Mary Shelley?s novel of the same name. The paper shows that Branagh?s film is one of many movie adaptations of Shelley?s Frankenstein and generally remains true to the book. The paper looks at the differences between the two, including the changes made to certain characters and the fact that the monster's narrative is not incorporated into the movie.
From the Paper
"Although there are significant deviations in plot between the film and the novel, the mood, tone and setting of Kenneth Branagh?s film version of Frankenstein are similar to Mary Shelley?s novel. Both are melancholy stories about the dark side of human nature. The Creature is not pure evil, but rather is like an abandoned child who rebels against his parents and society. Both the film and the novel reveal problems with people ?playing God.? Victor Frankenstein is overly ambitious and obsessed, and he is also in denial. He refuses to take responsibility for the Creature that he gave birth to. As a result, the Creature wreaks havoc on the community and kills people, including his creator. Both versions of Frankenstein have themes of responsibility, playing God, and loneliness. Neither Kenneth Branagh nor Mary Shelley make value judgments on their characters, but instead show the consequences of their actions. The film and the novel are Gothic horror stories that are more about human nature than about the supernatural."
|
|
|
