What is the difference between old films and now?
I would say, the Acting skills of the Actresses/Actors of both the old day films, to that of the present day cinema has more-or-less remained the same, that is, great; but, I feel, the technology in terms of Visual Effects (VFX) has improved massively!Let’s take the example of “The Abyss” (1989) by Sir James Cameron, which was a ground-breaking movie in terms of the CGI used! But, ofcourse the Acting by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Ed Harris was pivotal and iconic! The underwater scenes were breathtaking!Next one was, another leap by Jim Cameron with “Titanic”(1997)! The in-depth research that James Cameron and Jon Landau carried-out on the film, was phenomenal! Arguably the greatest movie of all-time!Then came the 21st Century, wherein Sir Peter Jackson created magic with “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy (2001–2003)! The intense battle scenes, and the digital compositing of the Hobbits, including Frodo & Sam, of the Middle-Earth, with that of the fellow Actors, were remarkable! The CGI model and Animation of the Gollum is a timeless masterpiece of its own!Finally, the return of the master of film-making, Sir James Cameron came up with the “Avatar” (2009). He took things a step further (much further in fact) by using both CGI and advanced stereoscopic filming methods to create the illusion of reality in the film. In an attempt of creating a virtual world, Avatar's footage is built from around 70% CGI, including the female lead, “Neytiri” played by Zoe Saldana. Motion Capture techniques were extensively used in the film. It resulted in 3 Oscar wins, namely in Visual Effects (VFX), Cinematography & Production Design!I’m sure and just can’t wait for the “Avatar 2” coming in 2020!But, one thing is for sure, be it 1900s or 2000s or in the future centuries to come, there is no replacement of Actresses/Actors, but technology as in VFX plays an important role in the success/failure of a particular film! Not to mention, the role of a Director, Screenwriter, Producers and all others involved…
Can Aristotle’s Elements of Theatre be applied to modern plays, or even modern TV and film scripts?
Sure. The six Elements (Spectacle, Character, Fable (Plot), Diction, Melody, and Thought) are really just guidelines for good storytelling; They’re not specific to any medium.The Unities are harder, but not impossible to heed in film and television. The closest examples are probably found in television bottle episodes, but there’s no reason that couldn’t be expanded to a whole series or film.Well there are reasons having to do with producers and executives telling you you won’t be able to maintain an audience’s interest by sticking to one story, one day, and one location. But I was taught that the very purpose of The Unities is to challenge the writer to do away with non-essential gimmicks and distractions and focus purely on telling a great story. It might be hard to sell a project like that, but I think it making it would be a wonderful experiment.
What are the differences between these two Hamlet films??
Well the obvious difference is that one has been made into a contemporary story about The Denmark Corp. And Hamlet is now an Indie film director. Quite a stretch. Mel Gibson's version leaves out parts, and if I remember also moves some scenes like Olivier did. The truest version is the Branaugh which I believe is word for word. Have you asked this at Movies? Pax-C
Have Shakespeare plays been performed in modern English while being the same in all other respects?
The company that puts out SparkNotes has a more modern paraphrased edition of most Shakespeare plays called No-Fear Shakespeare.[1] The original text is set side-by-side with a modern-language paraphrase, to make it easier and more approachable for students. I used this version with my lower reading level 9th graders, modified with vocabulary packets and historical context bubbles added to it.As far as I know, these versions have not been performed on professional stage, though my students would act out certain scenes in the classroom. (They always loved to do the balcony scene and the fight scene from Romeo and Juliet.)On the reverse side, there have been several modern adaptations of Shakespeare’s work that have kept the original Elizabethan language (early modern English,) while modernizing the acting and contextual backgrounds. There’s a brilliant version of Hamlet set in modern-day New York that has Ethan Hawke, Julia Stiles, and Bill Murray in it, and a whimsically anachronistic A Midsummer Nights’ Dream with Callista Flockhart. The acting carries the more unfamiliar language quite nicely.Footnotes[1] No Fear Shakespeare
Please compare/contrast the movie and the book for A Wrinkle in Time?
I need some ideas about how the Wrinkle in Time movie and book are different and alike. I don't have any so far, except for that they don't use Cathlicism (Catholic) or chritianity in the book. They don't mention Jesus's name. Please also tell me why you think this is along with my other question (the main one).