The Tempest, a famous play, by English author and play-write, William Shakespeare. This play is the last known play that Shakespeare ever wrote, which is one of the reasons of why people have examined it so closely. Many critics, hope to find out what Shakespeare was going through, and how his plays have changed over time. This play is one of his comedies that has many themes. Some of them include: betrayal, lust, drunkenness, magic, revenge and colonialism. This play is based/inspired from the story of the Wreck of the Sea Venture.
The Tempest has been made into quite a few films, such as the one made by the BBC, and the new one that was released in 2010. The movie version that was made by the BBC is similar to the play, as it uses almost all of the lines in the play and does not have many changes. Unlike the BBC version, the Hollywood film is more dramatic, has better good sound effects and is more suited to the modern audience. But does it reflect Shakespeare's work accurately?
The Hollywood film is made to sell, which means that even though it is based on the play, it has gone through changes. The most prominent change, has to be that Prospero (the main character of the book) has been played by the part of a woman,(Prospera), while the BBC version has the original, male role. Immediately, by changing the role of Prospero, the Father-Daughter relation ship has become the mother-daughter relationship.
Caliban has also changed but in appearance and is different in all three pieces. In the BBC movie, Caliban is a hairy "savage" who looks more like an early man than most men today. Caliban is also very stupid, and constantly puts himself in the same situation. In the Hollywood Movie, he looks like an African who has white patches on his skin. He looks as if parts of his skin has been peeled off, but it could also be a pigmentation problem. What ever the reason, these characters don't look like Caliban from the book, who is constantly described as a fish. Between the two however, The Hollywood version does a better interpretation because, Caliban is not hairy, and in the book, Caliban is from Algiers.
Although the main plot is the same, the Hollywood film has many cuts and a variety of scenes are not in the same order as in the book. The language of Shakespeare is difficult to interpret into modern English, especially for those people who are listening to/reading it for the first time. Not only that but books are generally longer, than movies. As a result, lines need to be cut, words need to be changed, and certain elements need to be altered.
In my opinion, I think that the Hollywood play is better than the BBC film, because it is more of a film rather than a documentary and appeals to to the audience much better. the BBC film is also much older than the Hollywood film, which can be seen by the many good sound effects as well as better eye-catching special effects. I still think however, that the play was better than both movies because it is the original and allows you to image what the story would have been like.
The Tempest has been made into quite a few films, such as the one made by the BBC, and the new one that was released in 2010. The movie version that was made by the BBC is similar to the play, as it uses almost all of the lines in the play and does not have many changes. Unlike the BBC version, the Hollywood film is more dramatic, has better good sound effects and is more suited to the modern audience. But does it reflect Shakespeare's work accurately?
The Hollywood film is made to sell, which means that even though it is based on the play, it has gone through changes. The most prominent change, has to be that Prospero (the main character of the book) has been played by the part of a woman,(Prospera), while the BBC version has the original, male role. Immediately, by changing the role of Prospero, the Father-Daughter relation ship has become the mother-daughter relationship.
Caliban has also changed but in appearance and is different in all three pieces. In the BBC movie, Caliban is a hairy "savage" who looks more like an early man than most men today. Caliban is also very stupid, and constantly puts himself in the same situation. In the Hollywood Movie, he looks like an African who has white patches on his skin. He looks as if parts of his skin has been peeled off, but it could also be a pigmentation problem. What ever the reason, these characters don't look like Caliban from the book, who is constantly described as a fish. Between the two however, The Hollywood version does a better interpretation because, Caliban is not hairy, and in the book, Caliban is from Algiers.
Although the main plot is the same, the Hollywood film has many cuts and a variety of scenes are not in the same order as in the book. The language of Shakespeare is difficult to interpret into modern English, especially for those people who are listening to/reading it for the first time. Not only that but books are generally longer, than movies. As a result, lines need to be cut, words need to be changed, and certain elements need to be altered.
In my opinion, I think that the Hollywood play is better than the BBC film, because it is more of a film rather than a documentary and appeals to to the audience much better. the BBC film is also much older than the Hollywood film, which can be seen by the many good sound effects as well as better eye-catching special effects. I still think however, that the play was better than both movies because it is the original and allows you to image what the story would have been like.
