Much Ado About Nothing Movie

Much Ado About Nothing Movie Free Online Research Papers Reading a play, novel, or poem creates an image in our minds that depicts how we see what we read. The characters come to life, we are suddenly in the middle of the scenery, and we begin to feel what the characters are feeling. All these images help us understand and get wrapped up in what we read. However, sometimes when these plays, novels, and poems are put into movies or pictures, they change. The actual storyline and characters themselves often stay the same but the way they are portrayed changes how we view it. For example the plot of Mucho Ado About Nothing is the same in both the play and movie, but Branagh’s depiction of the characters’ and scenes differ from how Shakespeare originally wrote them. A movie depiction of a character may be completely different than how we had imagined when we were reading. This is how I felt about Much Ado About Nothing. As I read the play certain images came to mind for certain things. I imagined characters a certain way. Yet whe n I watched the film by Branagh, many things were not as I had pictured. The differences in the characters’ personalities and appearances, the way certain scenes played out and the overall emotions that the film chose to exaggerate altered how I had imagined the play would be. We imagine the characters in a play like Much Ado About Nothing to be like people we know. We picture them to look and behave a certain way. The differences between my idea of how the characters would be and how they were actually portrayed proved as a great example of how viewing the movie altered the play. For example, as I read the play I imagined Hero and Beatrice to be very different. Hero comes across as someone who is very shy and soft spoken when reading the play. Her language in the play hints that she is very polite and respectful. In Act II, scene I when the subject of marriage comes up, Beatrice mocks Hero for always doing what will please her father. Beatrice quotes Hero saying, â€Å"Father, as it please you† (II, I, 52-53). Hero cares deeply for her cousin, father and Claudio. She proves this by helping set Beatrice up with Benedick saying, â€Å"I will do any modest office, my lord, to help my cousin to a good husband† (II, II, 365-366). Through reading you can sense that Hero is very kind and genuine. This is similar to how she was portrayed in the film; however, in the film of Much Ado About Nothing she is a lot younger than I imagined. Hero looks like a young teenage girl in the movie, not a woman who is about to be married. As for Beatrice, the same spunky personality was shown in the play as well as the movie. The difference was that in the movie Beatrice seems much older and more cynical. The flirty undertone in her insults to Benedick more often sounded like genuine putdowns as opposed to her way of hiding her true feelings for him. For example, in Act I scene I, the exchange between Benedick and Beatrice seemed more flirtatious in the play than how it was shown in the film. â€Å"I wonder that you will still be talking, Signor Benedick, nobody marks you† (I, I, 114-115). In the film Beatrice sounds angry when she says this to Benedick instead of in a more playful tone. These were subtle changes that Branagh made to the characters’ in the film but they did make a difference. The staging during the scenes and the emotions we expect from them are also very important when reading. With the play we imagine how it would be acted out, where it would be acted out and the kind of emotion the character would be saying the lines with. Of course, there will be differences when the play is turned into a movie since there are no stage directions; however, there were a few specific scenes that stood out to me. The first scene that played differently than I had anticipated was the scene at the masquerade party. In the play Don Pedro and Claudio devise the plan to disguise Don Pedro so he can talk to Hero for Claudio; however, in the film, Don Pedro was hardly disguised. To me it seemed perfectly clear that it was not Claudio. I thought it would be sneakier than how it was portrayed since in the play it seemed that Don Pedro was going to lead Hero to believe that he was Claudio. Don Pedro said to Claudio: I will assume thy part in some disguise And tell fair Hero I am Claudio, And in her bosom I’ll unclasp my heart And the conclusion is, she shall be thine (I, I, 311-321). Since Don Pedro stated that he would tell Hero he is Claudio in the play, when I saw the film it surprised me to see how obvious the distinction was. Another scene that played out differently than in my mind was the wedding. When Claudio finds out about Hero being unfaithful in the play, the anger and hurt he feels is clear through the text however; in the film, this scene seems to be much more dramatic. Don Pedro practically has to hold Claudio back from attacking Hero and at the altar Claudio screams at Hero and acts very violently. Claudio says mean and hurtful things to Hero in the play, and in the movie these words are very dramatic. For example when Claudio says, â€Å"There, Leonato, take her back again/Give not this rotten orange to your friend† (IV, I, 30-33). I had imagined him being more hurt or upset and less angry during this scene. Leonato reacted similarly in the wedding scene when he jumped after his daughter because he was so embarrassed by h er behavior, even telling her, â€Å"Death is the fairest cover for her shame/That may be wished for† (IV, I, 122-124). The ending was the biggest difference between the play and film. In the play everything just ends, whereas, in the film it ends with people dancing and singing happily around the town. I think this ending was better than the play because it brought more closure for the audience since it was less abrupt. By showing a ‘happily ever after’ ending to the film it helps the audience feel as if they have fully understood and enjoyed the entire play. No matter how closely a movie may follow the plot or script from a novel or play, there will be differences between the two. The reason for this is simple. People want to see drama. Especially with Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, where many readers may not fully understand the story. The dramatic over exaggeration of certain characters and scenes are not because the director was bored with the play. Branagh understood that in order to fully make the audience understand Shakespeare while being faithful to the script, certain scenes and characters would have to be altered. Whether it is the dialogue, the scenes or the characters that end up changing, it always makes for an interesting comparison. At times we find ourselves loving the movie version and other times we hate it. In Much Ado About Nothing I loved the movie despite the fact that things did not always turn out as I had imagined. Overall seeing the movie helped me understand the play better as a whole. Research Papers on Much Ado About Nothing MovieWhere Wild and West MeetHonest Iagos Truth through DeceptionMind TravelHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows EssayThe Fifth HorsemanBook Review on The Autobiography of Malcolm XRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andAnalysis Of A Cosmetics AdvertisementThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationEffects of Television Violence on Children

Facts About Mount St. Helens

Facts About Mount St. Helens Mount St. Helens is an active volcano located in the United States Pacific Northwest region. It is about 96 miles (154 km) south of Seattle, Washington and 50 miles (80 km) northeast of Portland, Oregon. Mount St. Helens is a part of the Cascade Mountain Range which runs from northern California through Washington and Oregon and into British Columbia, Canada. The range features many active volcanoes because it is a part of the Pacific ​Ring of Fire and the Cascadia Subduction Zone which has formed as a result of converging plates along the North American coast. Mount St. Helens most recent period of eruptions lasted from 2004 to 2008, although its most devastating modern eruption occurred in 1980. On May 18 of that year, Mount St. Helens erupted, causing a debris avalanche which took off the top 1,300 feet of the mountain and destroyed the forest and cabins around it. Today, the land surrounding Mount St. Helens is rebounding and most of it has been preserved as a part of the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. Geography of Mount St. Helens Compared to other volcanoes in the Cascades, Mount St. Helens is fairly young geologically speaking because it formed only 40,000 years ago. Its top cone that was destroyed in the 1980 eruption began forming only 2,200 years ago. Because of its quick growth, many scientists consider Mount St. Helens the most active volcano in the Cascades within the last 10,000 years. There are also three main river systems in the vicinity of Mount St. Helens. These rivers include the Toutle, Kalama and Lewis Rivers. This is significant because the rivers (especially the Toutle River) were impacted in its eruption. The nearest town to Mount St. Helens is Cougar, Washington, which is around 11 miles (18 km) from the mountain. The rest of the area is surrounded by the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Castle Rock, Longview, and Kelso, Washington were also affected by the 1980 eruption however because they are low-lying and near the regions rivers. The nearest main highway in and out of the area is State Route 504 (also called the Spirit Lake Memorial Highway) which connects with Interstate 5. Eruption of 1980 As previously mentioned, the most recent large eruption of Mount St. Helens took place in May of 1980. Activity on the mountain began on March 20, 1980, when a magnitude 4.2 earthquake struck. Shortly thereafter, steam began to vent from the mountain and by April, the north side of Mount St. Helens began to grow a bulge. Another earthquake struck on May 18 which caused a debris avalanche that wiped out the entire north face of the mountain. It is believed that this was the largest debris avalanche in history. Following the avalanche, Mount St. Helens eventually erupted and its pyroclastic flow leveled the surrounding forest and any buildings in the area. Over 230 square miles (500 sq km) was within the blast zone and was affected by the eruption. The heat from Mount St. Helens eruption and the force of its debris avalanche on its northern side caused the ice and snow on the mountain to melt which formed volcanic mudflows called lahars. These lahars then poured into the surrounding rivers (the Toutle and Cowlitz in particular) and led to the flooding of many different areas. Material from Mount St. Helens was also found 17 miles (27 km) south,  in the Columbia River along the Oregon-Washington border. Another problem associated with Mount St. Helens 1980 eruption was the ash it generated. During its eruption, the plume of ash rose as high as 16 miles (27 km) and quickly moved east to eventually spread around the world. The eruption of Mount St. Helens killed 57 people, damaged and destroyed 200 homes, wiped out the forest and popular Spirit Lake and killed around 7,000 animals. It also damaged highways and railroads. Although the most significant eruption of Mount St. Helens occurred in May of 1980, activity on the mountain continued until 1986 as a lava dome began forming in the newly formed crater at its summit. During this time, many small eruptions occurred. Following those events from 1989 to 1991, Mount St. Helens continued erupting ash. Post-Eruption Natural Rebound What was once an area that was completely scorched and knocked down by the eruption is today a thriving forest. Just five years after the eruption, surviving plants were able to sprout through the build-up of ash and debris. Since 1995, there has been a growth in the variety of plates within the disturbed area and today, there are many trees and shrubs growing successfully. Animals have also returned to the region and it is again growing to be a diverse natural environment.   2004-2008 Eruptions Despite these rebounds, Mount St. Helens continues to make its presence known in the region. From 2004 to 2008, the mountain was again very active and several eruptions occurred, although none were particularly severe. Most of these eruptions resulted in the building up of the lava dome on Mount St. Helens summit crater. In 2005, however, Mount St. Helens erupted a 36,000 foot (11,000 m) plume of ash and steam. A minor earthquake accompanied this event. Since these events, ash and steam have been visible on the mountain several times in recent years. To learn more about Mount St. Helens today, read Mountain Transformed from National Geographic Magazine. Sources:Funk, McKenzie. (2010, May). Mount St. Helens. Mountain Transformed: Thirty Years After the Blast, Mount St. Helens Is Reborn Again. National Geographic.  http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/05/mount-st-helens/funk-text/1. United States Forest Service. (2010, March 31). Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/giffordpinchot/. Wikipedia. (2010, April 27). Mount St. Helens - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens.