Though extremely different in many ways, Amadeus was successfully translated from stage to film not as an adaptation but a parallel work. Peter Shaffer’s stage version is highly theatrical and unfortunately does not literally translate well to film, for multiple reasons. Shaffer and Milos Forman adapted Amadeus in a way that appealed to cinema audiences through cutting characters, expanding upon characters, altering language and narration, set and costume design, plot changes and taking full advantage of the dramatic powers of the camera. Milos Forman said “The fact that Amadeus was so stylized, so theatrical—well, so un-cinematic, was actually a blessing—it meant we wouldn’t be tempted to merely translate the play to screen, but would be forced to demolish the original, then totally reimagine it as a film.” One of the largest differences between play and film that make the film Amadeus its own piece of art, are the changes in narration. Though called Amadeus, it is really Salieri that occupies the center of the stage and “conducts” the action of the play. In the film, Mozart’s role is enhanced from the beginning.
The film commences with the declaration of “Mozart! Mozart!” as opposed to the play’s “Salieri! Salieri!” In the play, Salieri doesn’t mention Mozart in his speech until the end. He goes on and on about his undying passion for absolute music and his dedication to his father, the Lord, until finally “The same year I left Lombardy, a young prodigy was touring
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
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.
To play one of Shakespeare’s most complex roles successfully on stage or on screen has been the aspiration of many actors. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been the focus on various accounts throughout the 20th Century, each actor attempting to bring something unique and unmarked to the focal character. Franco Zeffirelli and Kenneth Branagh, both film directors, introduce varying levels of success on the screen through downright differences in ways of translation and original ideas. Zeffirelli’s much shorter interpretation of the film is able to convey the importance of Hamlet as a masterwork by using modern approaches to film but still capturing the traditional work behind Shakespeare’s well-known play.
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
Baz Lurhmann’s creation of the film Romeo and Juliet has shown that today’s audience can still understand and appreciate William Shakespeare. Typically, when a modern audience think of Shakespeare, they immediately think it will be boring, yet Lurhmann successfully rejuvenates Romeo and Juliet. In his film production he uses a number of different cinematic techniques, costumes and a formidably enjoyable soundtrack; yet changes not one word from Shakespeare’s original play, thus making it appeal to a modern audience.
This director’s choice shows that both directors cherished and respected Shakespeare's written text. In Zeffirelli’s film, the dialogue fits in with the other aspects of the film, such as the costumes and set. since everything is traditional, but what is interesting is that the actors manage to sound very natural and comfortable with the dialogue. They managed to convey strong emotion with help of the text and entirely transformed into the characters. Since, Zefferelli's version both includes the traditional sets, costumes, and language it makes it easy for the audience to understand the original play, the film is straightforward and does not contradict the original play, making the film a credible resort for those who want to have a better understanding of the story. Unlike Zeffirelli’s version, Luhrmann’s costumes and set do not suit the dialogue, making the Shakespearean dialogue in his version both strange to watch and hear, another odd aspect is that at times the characters did not precisely mean what they were saying, for instance, when a character was talking about their sword, they were actually talking about their guns named sword, consequently, this made the dialogue confusing to follow at times. Nevertheless, the actors in both films managed to execute an admirable performance and did Shakespeare's text
Oliver parker's Othello came out in 1995 with Laurence Fishburne as Othello this is also the first time Othello was played by a coloured actor, Kenneth Branagh as Iago and Irene Jacob as Desdemona. Parker kept the original plot and language intact, however the movie seemed to give Othello life through visual and audio aids. Parker's Othello enables the viewer to associate on a personal level and compliments to the anticipation and imagination of those who have read the play before watching the movie.
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.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet has countlessly been formatted into film depictions of the play. Each film seemed to be on one end of the spectrum of either being closely interpreted or completely remodeled a different idea of what Hamlet is. The film version of Hamlet released in 2000 seems to follow closely to the play in some aspects, yet at the same time having its own unique identity Despite there being many differences with the play Hamlet and the film adaptation of Hamlet (2000) by Michael Almereyda there are three categories that really stand out, those are the character portrayal, interrelationship between the characters, and some of the essential themes differ as well. Although there are many differences, one aspect that remains the same is the dialogue of the characters which stays true to the Shakespearean dialect.
This paper will take a look into the movie Amadeus, to see if the film accurately
Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 filmic translation of William Shakespeare's Hamlet is a dramatic telling of the classic story which is as well acted as it is entertaining. Aside from these points, Zeffirelli's (and co-scripter Christopher Devore's) screenplay is an edited, and re-mixed version of the original which has many lines cut, as well as the entire sub plot concerning Fortenbras, completely removed. Franco Zefirelli's private interpretation of Hamlet, although divergent in some ways from Shakespeare's version, still remains a superior rendering, due to the continuity of the screenplay.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Concise Biography. Films On Demand. Films Media Group, 2007. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
Even though the two pieces were composed in different centuries – Mozart’s piece in the 18th century and Strauss’ piece in the 20th century – some of the musical elements that they share transcend both time periods. The characteristics of music in the classical period had to do with the new view of human psychology. Mozart was one to introduce contrasting moods within movements or even within a theme. He was able to infuse strong contrasts of moods within the style of his music (Burkholder, Grout, & Palisca 475). In Figaro, Mozart includes an overture which is a piece in sonata form despite its lack of a development section. In Act I cavatina, “Se vuol ballare”, Mozart whimsically makes changes to the character of his music so as to correspond to Figaro’s machinations (Hambrik n.p). By doing so, he musically