The Trevor Nunn's version of the film has many good qualitys, but compared to the Michael Radford version of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice it is not as good. The Micheal Radford's film is better because of the choice of clothes, their choice in setting, and their speech also why othere belive these reasons do not make a good movie.
In the Micheal Radford film the choice of their clothing was old, ladies wearing elegant dresses, men wearing cloaks and robes, it makes it feel as though time turned back to the renaissance era and are actually inside the book. As while the Trevor Nunn version makes it feel as though you are in the 1920’s. With men wearing fedora hats and suits, while women wore short skirts and dresses which add to people …show more content…
The characters speech is close to the or are the exact same words that the book use while the other version leaves words out and also adds words. While some people say this does not make a move good or bad, that is true but when someone makes a movie from a book others hope that the movie is following how the book is or is close to it and makes people like the movie more than a film that does not make them feel as though it is from the book.
Other people may say these reasons don't make a good movie. But they do when people read a book and then hear a movie about their book is coming out they are excited and are hoping that the movie is similar to the book. for ecample The Harry Potter series, the movies are very close to and are the same as the books. True when making a movie based of a book that you can't add everything that is in the book, but that does not mean that you can leave out parts or any important information.
As people can see the Trevor Nunn's Version is not as good as the Micheal Radfors's version better because of the choice of clothes, their choice in setting, and their speech and why others thing these reason do make a good movie.In conclusion the Michael Radford version of the Merchant of
In the Micheal Radford film the choice of their clothing was old, ladies wearing elegant dresses, men wearing cloaks and robes, it makes it feel as though time turned back to the renaissance era and are actually inside the book. As while the Trevor Nunn version makes it feel as though you are in the 1920’s. With men wearing fedora hats and suits, while women wore short skirts and dresses which add to people …show more content…
The characters speech is close to the or are the exact same words that the book use while the other version leaves words out and also adds words. While some people say this does not make a move good or bad, that is true but when someone makes a movie from a book others hope that the movie is following how the book is or is close to it and makes people like the movie more than a film that does not make them feel as though it is from the book.
Other people may say these reasons don't make a good movie. But they do when people read a book and then hear a movie about their book is coming out they are excited and are hoping that the movie is similar to the book. for ecample The Harry Potter series, the movies are very close to and are the same as the books. True when making a movie based of a book that you can't add everything that is in the book, but that does not mean that you can leave out parts or any important information.
As people can see the Trevor Nunn's Version is not as good as the Micheal Radfors's version better because of the choice of clothes, their choice in setting, and their speech and why others thing these reason do make a good movie.In conclusion the Michael Radford version of the Merchant of