Play vs. Book
Many different variations of the play Romeo
and Juliet. One variation was seen recently by the grade 10’s at Strathcona.
Also, the grade 10’s read the play that Shakespeare had intended as the
play. There are many differences in the
book compared to the play that we saw. In the play the fighting consists of
taekwando/karate type fight scenes, while in the book they are sword
fights. In the play there is also a
large amount of crude humor. While many would say that in the book it is crude
as well, it is wittier than it is crude. In the play they use a lot of modern
day slang while in the book it is Shakespearian Old English.
P.1
In the book it is put into strict detail
about the sword fights and the intensity of them, yet in the play they use
taekwando/karate type moves instead. This seems too unreal to what William
Shakespeare had originally intended. It made it seem to modern day as to the
early Shakespearian times when it was originally written. It also makes the
play seem less dramatic as compared with the book when the fight scenes are
made so un-technical and un-realistic.
P.2
In the book the Shakespearian language is
used throughout with witty jokes that actually takes thoughtfulness to
understand, whereas in the play it uses crude unnecessary humor that is very
modern day, even referring to the song “Baby got Back” sung by Sir Mix Alot in the early 90’s. While some may
think that this adds humor to the play it adds an amount of crudeness that is
unnecessary
P.3
The book Romeo and Juliet is based in
[insert date here] while the play seems to be based in more recent times,
judging by some of the language used as well as some of the references to
modern day things.
Conclusion
{Summarize 3 paragraphs} I do not think Ms.
Clarke liked the play because it seemed to be almost a spoof on the book. The
language was crude along with the jokes and the “fight” scenes were more unreal
than they were in the book. Etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment