The comical personalities all the characters had helped the audience become more intrigued in the story of this play. From this play, I liked that there was only one actor for each character. It made it easier to understand which character was which. The actors had different costumes, which made it easier to apprehend who was…
The play went over the idea that fate rules but not as clear as the book did. It stated stuff about fate but the book did a way better job explaining it. The book made more sense than the play did. Both had the same theme but the book was way more clear at explaining…
I liked the play because it gave a good description on the murder of Amyas Crale. The play described how Caroline Crale had murdered her husband by the coniine that was put in his beer. The coniine is extracted from the hemlock plant. The hemlock is the same plant that killed Socrates. When Amyas Crale drank the poison, he started to have cramps and pains as he slowly died.…
The language kept me engaged throughout the whole play. I was interested for a majority of the play. I would enjoyed it more had the actors not read from a script. " A series of 10 brief scenes, the script is rich with poignancy, tragedy and humor, qualities that director Nina Lee Aquino's Tarragon production admirably captures," according to NOW Toronto.…
Imagine being taken away in tornado not knowing what’s going to happen next .Well imagine what Dorothy felt like as she was being picked up by the gigantic storm. If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’ll give you a hint, The Wizard of Oz! By viewing the play it helped me enhance my understanding of the written version of The Wizard of Oz in three ways the first way is the setting.…
This play was one of the longest plays I had ever sat in on, but it didn’t feel like it. The characters and the story kept making me want more. It was that good! This play, however, did provide more than just entertainment. It provided a sense of wonder, wonder about the lives of the characters, what they felt, what they thought, and what they did.…
In Arthur Miller’s screenplay, The Crucible, some of the information throughout the screenplay was changed from the original play by Miller. Some of the effects may have been included to add more of a visual to occurrences between acts that had only been mentioned through dialogue in the actual play. Although it may be easier for an audience to remember the information, the adding of visual scenes that were not original to the script is not necessary to follow along. Therefore, I do not believe the changes made to the screenplay were justifiable. The original play provided enough information for the audience to understand the causes of certain scenes.…
In my opinion, the play exceeded my expectations. I did not expect the actors to perform in a way that made me believe his or her conflict. The setting was well thought out and complimented the dialogue in a way that made me pay more attention to the conflict. The painting also added to the setting by focusing on the art aspect of the play. I also enjoyed the humor of the play.…
One of these differences is that in the movie, the man who helps them get food is Mr. Koogler, while in the play, his name is Mr. Kraler. In the play, his character name is Mr. Kraler, but in the movie he is called Mr. Koogler. Another difference is when Anne receives her diary. In the movie, she receives it as a present for her 13th birthday, while in the play, she gets it after they’ve moved into the annex. The last difference is that in the movie, Mr. Koogler stays healthy throughout the story, but in the play, Mr. Kraler goes to the hospital.…
People have converted novels into plays countless amounts of time. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. Turning a novel into a play means challenges will be dealt with. Questions are asked and things will have to be changed to make everything fit. The Neverending Story by Michael Ende and David S. Craig adapted it.…
The way the actors acted and portrayed the characters helps us understand the characters more in the film than in the play. The movie and the play both excel each other in their own categories but the movie triumphs…
The waiting room by Lisa Loomer is a fascinating piece of work, three women waiting for doctor’s call . In this waiting room Lisa Loomer explores how society view women beauty through different places and time. One of the women is a Chinese, she came to see a doctor because of her foot, in this period china view of beauty meant small feet. The other women is a British women during this time women wearied very tight dress that made the waste small, she was well educated women and her husband insisted her ovary removed because it was causing her hysteria. The third women is a modern women from united states, through advancement in science in now possible to modify ones body to their specific needs.…
The play was interesting but the plot was strange. In all honesty, I didn’t enjoy it that much. The plot was interesting and different but other than that, I found it rather boring. My attention was never grabbed in the play. The acting was great for many of the players, all of the lead roles were phenomenal.…
The singing, which repeated throughout the play, foreshadowed the vicious murders which was cool. I liked how it did not come out right away with murders, but however with comic relief which did not however continue until the end. But the middle part was pretty funny and the singing was not my favorite…
In the play, Friar John has been sent to Mantua to inform Romeo of Juliet's phony suicide. He is unsuccessful in getting the message to Romeo due to being quarantined because he has been "in a house / Where the infectious pestilence did reign [. . .] " (Shakespeare 5.2). In the movie, the message from Friar Lawrence to Romeo is sent through a delivery service called "poste haste. " The message is "blown away in the dust-laden wind" (Downing 5).…