Film

The Public Enemy is a hugely significant piece of American cinema, reigniting the country’s longstanding predilection with gangsters that had reached a lull in entertainment. Pre-code, the film is also known for its controversial violence, which, while tame by today’s standards, pushed the absolute limits for what Hollywood could and couldn’t show at the time. Directed by William Wellman in 1931, The Public Enemy opened in the Spring to a mixed critical reaction. Many critics were turned off by the film’s violence and the film’s almost romantic look at the life of a Gangster. Variety called the film “Low-brow” and criticized the film’s foreword and postscript as a moralizing point to the film’s proceedings. These sentiments echoed other views at the time, yet, audiences flocked to the film.

The budget was set at $151,000, just over $2.5 million today, and it is estimated that The Public Enemy earned nearly seven times that original figure. It finished as the 9th highest grossing film of 1931. This after similar gangster films like City Streets released in 1931 failed to ignite such fervor among viewers. So, what set The Public Enemy apart from its competition? And what has kept the film in the public conscience ever since? The script for The Public Enemy was written by Hollywood veteran Harvey F. Thew. Authors and former gang members Kubec Glasmon and John Bright wrote a book that would go unpublished entitled Beer and Blood.

Glasmon and Bright based the core idea of their novel on real events and real people, having been witnesses to some of Al Capone’s gang rivalries and wars in Chicago. Darryl F. Zanuck, Warners Bros. studio head, purchased the rights to the unfinished novel and assigned Thew to write the screenplay, which would be the film’s only Academy Award nomination. Zanuck would then assign William Wellman, who was under contract at the studio, to direct. Wellman, who had directed a total of three films in 1930 and would direct five films in 1931, served in World War I like the brother of the main character in The Public Enemy. Wellman famously promised that he would deliver the “toughest, most violent picture you ever did see.”

The lead character in the film is the standard definition of an anti-hero. He is portrayed as a completely amoral, emotionally brutal, and ruthless individual. The film opens on his youth where we meet Tom as mischievous hoodlum in the pre-Prohibition city streets of presumably Chicago. Tom’s upbringing and early environment is an obvious beginning to the man we will meet later in the film, the abuse he suffers and acting out the he does with childhood friend Matt is, at least in the moment, understood. What is most interesting about this section of the film though, is that, unlike most films of the time, The Public Enemy examines the social hurdles and society’s lack of attention towards youths at the time.

Crime films in the 1930’s often began with a notice of the author or authors intent; The Public Enemy is no different. The film starts with the notice: “It is the intention of the authors of The Public Enemy to honestly depict an environment that exists today in a certain strata of American life, rather than to glorify the hoodlum or the criminal”. These statements were typically regarded as a ploy for critical sympathy, not so much for the audience’s response. A growing attitude of the times were that films glamorized the lifestyle of the “Enemy” of the people, in this film the gangster. While it wasn’t necessarily the duty of the studio to be a check and balance system on American societal ideals, studios nonetheless made attempts which were mostly a cynical gesture and spoke more about Hollywood’s own morally complex and contractionary position on criminality of the times.

Like those other crime and gangster films of the period, The Public Enemy chose to omit any and all representations of the alliances that bound organized crime and politics. In its place, the film chooses to represent the spectacle and melodrama of the criminal’s life. Tom goes from the rather humble beginnings of a poor family, to a pick pocket, to a criminal, to a rich and respected member of a crime syndicate. The film doesn’t skimp on the details of Tom’s new life, showcasing fancy cars and new suits. But Tom remains trapped within the concept of immaturity throughout the movie, the worst his of these traits dealing with his abusive attitude towards women. Incapable of domesticity, Tom seems to treat women as if he owned them, a way to show his rise and power alongside his other worldly possessions.

The interesting lens in which to view The Public Enemy through, is to understand where the gangster fit into 1930’s America. While, American audiences of 1931 flocked to the Public Enemy and other gangster films in this period, the idea of the gangster was already becoming a poisonous one. Originally viewed as a heroic, man of the people idea, fighting against the Prohibition of the 20’s, 1930’s America quickly changed. The gangster became an idea in which struggling, early Depression Americans could place blame. The gangster threatened the survival of American values and ideals, the very social order of America was in danger because these characters were running amok in cities and towns. Nowhere was this more obvious than with the staggering shift in press coverage of Al Capone, who at one time was referred to as the “Horatio Alger lad of Prohibition”, well before he was convicted for tax evasion in late 1931 (2).

The very idea of our historical view of the “classic gangster film” was, in fact, the result of a single production season, 1930-1931. Only thirty films were made in this cycle. There were massive successes, The Doorway to Hell in late 1930 and Little Caesar in January 1931, which flooded the cycle with studios attempting to catch onto the successes. Unfortunately, films released after April 1931 were box-office poison. After these failures, audiences had enough of gangsters and crime films, many claiming that these films only further glamorized the way of life. Responding to this criticism and growing momentum that would ultimately lead to the creation of the Hollywood Code, the New York censor board cut a total of six scenes from The Public Enemy before allowing its release in mid-April.

Why then, after these points, is The Public Enemy remembered and celebrated among the many, more prestigious and recognized films of the time? At its core, The Public Enemy is a violent, family melodrama, placing the conflict between the two social worlds of the second-generation immigrant, dramatizing the family conflicts generated by the process of Americanization. Tom’s father makes only a single appearance in the film, an intense scene in which he appears on the porch to scold and later beat Tom as punishment dressed in his police officer uniform. He is mostly silent in his sequence, setting in place the mental state Tom will live under, relating his father with law enforcement.

His father is absent from the film after this scene, we later hear from Tom’s mother that he died. Law enforcement is only ever seen again through the lens of Officer Burke who’s one line is delivered to Tom’s war hero brother Mike, speaking of the worst part of Tom’s criminality, “is that he’s been lying to his mother”.

Through the film’s story, it attempts to create an unsympathetic character in Tom. Yet, its biggest flaw is also what makes the film the most memorable. James Cagney became a star with the film. His first starring role, Cagney brings Tom to life with a performance that oozes charisma and power. Even in Tom’s worst moments, Cagney gives the audience something to sympathize with, more than anything though, Cagney makes Tom feel like a real person. Eschewing the commonplace of the time to overact, Cagney portrays Tom as calm and collected, there is a buildup to his explosive outbursts, something we can see, and watch grow. Tom is without a weapon for majority of the film’s first two acts, yet this is where he feels the most dangerous. This is a testament to the actor Cagney was and would later become.

Cagney would not portray another gangster again until 1938 in Angels with Dirty Faces, for which he would be nominated for an Oscar. Cagney would play however, a series of tough guy characters that were essentially rifts on Tom Powers. Through these performances, Cagney would create his iconic image, an image so strong and well created that many in the viewing audience believed he was a kid from the slums who made his way into films. Some would go so far as to copy Cagney’s mannerisms and dress in a hope to be more like the actor. His reach spread far and wide, thanks in no small part to The Public Enemy.

The film also benefits greatly from the innovative work behind the camera from William Wellman. By the point he began work on the film, Wellman was already a celebrated directed and in demand with nearly all the studios. The very idea of Hollywood beauty lighting might be traced to Wellman, who captures every ounce of James Cagney with malicious glee. One gets the impression, that while Tom Powers is a monster and criminal, Wellman truly enjoyed working with Cagney.

Wellman’s camera lingers effortlessly in every frame, placing you inside the moments and creating a truly uncomfortable viewing experience. He highlights depth of field magnificently in moments of great emotional anguish. Recalling the first and only time we see Tom’s father, the camera holds in a low angle shot on Tom as he torments a neighbor girl. Slowly though, the camera moves to the left of the screen revealing Tom’s father standing, menacingly, on the porch. The shot itself reveals everything we need to know about the father, as well as, Tom’s relationship with the man. Wellman achieves a great amount of understanding and insight into his characters mental state purely through his compositions.

It’s in Wellman’s compositions that the film shows its roots in the Silent Era. Produced just four year after The Jazz Singer, The Public Enemy, could conceivably, work as a silent film. So much of the film’s story and character motivations is told through looks between said characters. Dialogue acts as a more grounding element of the story telling, a further brick for the audience to bring them into the world. While the film has held onto a strong critical claim almost 100 years after its original release, one does wonder if its acclaim would be even higher had it been released as a silent film. Wellman’s camera work, while again, it is celebrated, may have drawn much more acclaim in its original release.

The Public Enemy has stood the test of time as a film worth not only remembering but celebrating. While not without its flaws, whether that’s subtextual or in quality, the film is remember today for launching the career of one of Hollywood’s greatest stars in James Cagney. As society changes and bends to new ideals and values, we look back at history with a new eye, seeing things that we might denounce or celebrate today. Through this lens, its impossible not to see The Public Enemy as a piece of our history with its own story to tell.

The story is told trough the eyes of a narcoleptic named Jack, played by Edward Norton (American History X,). Jacks only joys in life are the possessions he owns, until he meets Tyler Durden played Brad Pitt (Se7en). Tyler believes that it is self-destruction that makes life worth living, not self- improvement. The very same night they meet, an explosion blows up Jacks apartment and possessions. Tyler offers Jack a place to stay but on one condition Tyler I want you to hit me as hard as you can. Despite Jacks doubts about hitting Tyler he does and discovers that fighting for recreation can give the ultimate high. This leads to them setting up Fight club which gradually sweeps across America taking with it Tylers influence and philosophy.

The big shock of the story comes when Jack realises he is Tyler, and he came to life as a means of escaping his agonizingly boring life. When he realises this he must deal with the dramatic consequences of Tylers actions.

The narration is restricted as its told by Jack, and therefore has a voice over. The films structure is un-conventional as its cause and effect is told in a non-linear narrative, looking at the decisions Jack has made and how they has effected the plot.

The sequence I am analysing made up of four sections. The first is in the parking lot when Tyler asks Jack to hit him, the second is in a movie projection booth where Tyler splices sex organs into films, the third is in the Pressman hotel dinner area and kitchens where Tyler urinates in the soup, and the final reverts back to the parking lot where they start fighting. There is a mixture of cardinal and catalyser events, which take place during the piece which both, help the audience to build an idea of the characters personality and start the story rolling at a faster pace..

Camera framing/angle/movement

The first scene of the sequence consists of static long shots and medium shots. A shot reverse shot in medium close up is used to put stress on Tylers bizarre request and to cutaway to Jacks bemused reaction. All shots are from low levels, which helps the characters overpower the audience.

The most notable features of this scene is the way the characters are framed in the doorway of the bar, right in the centre of the screen creating a symmetrical looking shot. Either side of them rubbish is wrapped in black bags. However the bags are un-even as on Jacks side the bags are in a large bin, yet on Tylers side the bags are strewn on the ground. I feel this demonstrates Roland Barthes semic code. In this case rubbish represents the characters or their philosophy – Jack finds pleasure from possessions he doesnt need, therefore the possessions have control over him – the bin is his possessions and he is the rubbish confined to the bin. Where as Tyler only takes what is essential for his existence, he doesnt need such useless possessions therefore is free of the bin. This theory is further supported by something Tyler says later in the film We are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. I believe that this is meant literally.

The next two scenes use the fourth look of film. This is when the character (in this case both) looks directly at the camera to address the viewers. This is rarely used well in this sort of film as it makes the audience feel uncomfortable. However in this particular film it works remarkably well in lightening the mood of the scene to let the audience get to grips with the situation and what Tyler wants Jack to do and more importantly why. The framing of these shots is very interesting as Jack is always in a medium close up and always has his back to Tyler who is always in the background. They occasionally share out the dialogue. The idea of symmetry is echoed when Tyler is framed in between the two film reels.

There are some interesting extreme close ups and cutaways in these scenes, especially when the camera imitates the movement made when Tyler cuts the frame. There are number of dynamic shots used during these scenes such as when the camera tracks sideways in the projection booth, another

tracking shot to reveal some of the audience in the theatre, the pan across and down from Tyler to Jack at the table in a close up shot as Tyler walks passed, and when the camera pans across from the soup to Tylers boxers, and then cuts to another shot and pans up from a medium shot of Tyler and focuss its attention on Jack as he enters the room.

Colour and lighting

The use of colour and lighting during the sequence is very interesting. The lighting used most predominantly throughout the film is a very naturalistic form of lighting. The clinical bluey lighting used in the car lot and the kitchen of the hotel is featured quite often, and the noirish lighting used in the projection booth is used a lot. The bright flash of light in the dim theatre illustrates well the frame that he has spliced in.

The colour of the picture itself seems as though it has been bleached during the developing stage, a technique Fincher used in Se7en. When this combines with some of the lighting it creates some excellent effects. During the scenes in the parking lot there appears to be a blue filter over the lens. This works for both creating a realistic lighting look and gives a lot of atmosphere to the piece.

The colour and style of the outfits worn by the characters is quite contrasting. In the first scene Tylers combination of a red leather jacket, sky blue t-shirt, jogging bottoms and workmens boots acts as a symbolic/semic code to visually describe his personality to the audience. He wears whatever he wants, not what some fashion designer says he should wear.

In the book he gets all his clothes free from lost property places in leisure centres as he is very anti-consumerism. Jacks costume is completely contrasting as he wears dull colours and a typical suit. This is also a semic/symbolic code as it represents his boredom. Jacks outfit remains the same throughout the sequence on the other hand Tylers changes in every section of the sequence. This helps to illustrate that Jack is merely looking back over previous events as the plot starts at the end of the story.

Sound

Throughout the majority of the sequence there isnt any non-diegetic sound apart from at the very end when Tyler punches Jack the bass beat of a song starts. This beat continues until they start fighting properly, at which point the rest of the drum instruments are added.

All throughout the sequence it is absolutely full of non-diegetic sounds which when analysed it is apparent that there are a great deal of tracks playing at once, some unnoticeable and some very obvious. There are a great deal of diegetic sounds that occur both in the foreground and in the background during this sequence including the sound of crickets in bushes, foot movements, the distant sound of traffic, the sound of the machinery used to splice the film can be heard as well, such as the cutting of the frames, the tape ripping, and the clamp fixing the frames together and also the beeping of the cigarette burns, the five second notice bell for the projectionist, and the song from inside the movie theatre which as it cuts to the theatre suddenly increases in volume, the sound of plates and cutlery being fiddled with and the pianists playing in the background. Some of which are Barthes Reference/Cultural codes.

The traffic in the first scene acts as a reference/cultural code as it tells us that the bar is situated close to a motorway. Sound design is quite important at the end of this scene as the sound of a lorry passing is manipulated and combined with the voice over to put emphasis on the break in narrative and time freeze. Another interesting use of sound is when Tyler is trying to urinate into the soup and cannot go so he pours water on the floor to make him need to go. The audience also hears this sound making them want to go as well.

The majority of the editing in the sequence is basic, such as straight cuts and there are quite a few match cuts used to cut when a movement is carried out, for example when Tyler punches Jack it cuts from a medium shot as he swings his punch, to a long shot as he connects. This particular example is interesting as it goes against convention cutting from a long shot to a close up or medium shot as the punch connects.

The most interesting use of editing to create time and space is when the editing stops time allowing the narrator to go back over some background information. This is by means of a freeze frame to stop the action then go back in time. The cut used to join the sequence up again when the paused time scene is over is a basic straight cut. This makes the flow of the piece a lot smoother as you barely even notice the break in time, whereas if it reverted back to the freeze frame

then un-paused the characters it would not be as fluid. Another interesting editing technique used is a fill reveal frame where the camera tracks in front of a shadowed machine and cuts to another shot.

I conclude by stating that it has been difficult covering all the important features of the scene and features in enough detail in such a short essay. There are many other features I could mention in detail such as Jacks Oedipal journey in the film, the effect this sequence has on the equilibrium and how Jack must resolve it, psychoanalysis in the film and many other topics.

On a final note I feel that there are many binary oppositions in the film. The main being Jack v Tyler. This is more in the form of consumerism v anti-consumerism, which is what each character originally stands for. Ask yourself who is the bad guy.

Macbeth on the Estate is a modern adaptation of Macbeth. It is set on a modern, run-down housing estate in Birmingham. The major changes from the play are the setting and the characters. There are much fewer noble qualities about the people and places shown. Instead, the setting is very run-down and poor. The characters are also corrupt and indulgent. A lot of the blame for the bad things that happen in the play seems to be given to characters.

For example, the possibility that the witches control Macbeth, and he is not in control is implied to be untrue by suggesting that the effects that seem to be supernatural are simply caused by drugs and the poor conditions. There are also some things done that cannot be done in a theatre, such as camerawork to direct the audience. I believe that the film is a reasonable good conversion of the play into a modern film. I believe that it managed to portray the meaning of the original in a modern way that is easy to understand for modern people, as well as making suggestions about the story.

I like how every aspect of Shakespearean world was converted into something of the modern world, for example the castle being converted into a social club. What I don’t like about it is the fact that the language wasn’t changed from the original text. Although it is quite important to keep the film similar to the original, so as not to forget that it is the same play, I think it made the film too much like the original play. I believe that if the setting is changed, the modernisation should be completed by making the language more modern.

The point of the film is, after all, to give a modern slant. The language is the most out-of-date part and the most difficult-to-understand part of the play, and I believe that modern language should have been included. I will answer the question of how the ideas have been modernised mainly by giving various examples and explanation of what has been shown in their modernisation. I will answer the question of how the beginning and ending of the play have been changed by describing both beginnings and endings, explaining the changes made and also by giving reasons for changes.

I will discuss the change in theatricality by first describing the differences between what can be done in film compared with theatre, and then describing and explaining the particular changes. I will discuss the characters by giving a description of the general change in the characters, and why this is, and then by analysing the change in each character individually, with possible reasons for these changes. I will then discuss how and why the adaptation loses its social and historical meaning and adds a meaning of its own.

Shakespeare plays are often modernised to make them more accessible to modern people. This is so that people now can understand the plays, and can understand the meanings behind the plays, because they have been put into a modern context that we can relate to. Some ideas are not actually just translated; they are completed changed, or some are added. For example, the idea of Macbeth being totally evil is changed. Because this modernisation is a film, which means that it has certain ways to direct the audience in a certain way, a select few of the ideas from the original play are translated.

An example of these is the idea that Macduff is a complete hero. Although I do not like the fact that only a few ideas are translated, I believe that on the whole, the few that have been translated have been translated well. The beginning and ending of a play or film can be very important for the meaning behind it. Beginnings give the audience a place to start from, to understand the story. They introduce the story and characters, and give the producers a place to start the story from. Endings are useful to round off the story, and give the producers a place to end the story.

They are also useful to round off the story for the audience, whether it is a resolved ending or a cliffhanger. The very beginning scene of the play involves the three witches discussing Macbeth. This gives and impression of them controlling the plot, and makes this scene seem like the original source of Macbeth’s evil. The beginning of the film is very different to that of the play. Macduff says an invented dialogue, although the audience does not know who he is at the time. The beginning has a lot of subtle references to the setting and the meanings.

Macduff recites the new speech on a large wasteland. When the camera first shows this setting, before Macduff enters the scene, there is nothing restricting the view, and the whole of the frame is used, including the very extremities, so there is no particular focus point. This makes suggestions about the idea of confusion and the lack of focus in the story. The fact that the camera fades in re-enforces this with a feeling of fog. This barren landscape could be a battlefield, possibly like one in the play, reflecting the war-like culture.

The fact that we don’t know what it is re-enforces the idea of confusion, and also the idea about the audience deciding themselves about the true meaning of the play. The shot of Macduff is very close to him, and he looks right into the camera. This gives the impression that he is talking directly to the audience. This and the fact that Macduff is in the very first scene, rather than the witches, give an impression that Macduff is controlling the whole story, instead of the supernatural.

I believe that Macduff is used as part of the way that the director makes him a larger part of the story, to ask questions about his true character. There are many differences between a play and a film. The main one is that with a play, the audience can interact much more, and can decide the story for themselves. This mainly comes from lack of direction, and the ability to imagine elements of the story. One way in which this is done is by not directing the audience’s view. In a film, because there is a camera, the audience’s view can be directed onto a particular character or object.

This means that the audience’s view can also be sub-consciously directed towards a particular meaning to the film. In a play, on the other hand, the audience is free to look at whichever characters they wish, to watch their actions and reactions to other events. This adds an element of the audience being able to decide what really happens in the play, and being able to decide which ideas are true, as well as the director being able to direct the audience to parts which show their own feelings.

Another way in which is this is achieved is the difference in how the setting is portrayed. A film can be shot in different locations, making the setting much more believable, and making it seem much more like the characters are in the place where they are supposed to be. One again, this allows the audience to be directed, and shown exactly what the director believes the setting is, leaving no room for imagining it. A play has a much less vivid, defined setting. It is demonstrated by symbolic references to the actual things, meaning that the audience has to imagine them more.

This means that a film is better if the director wants to deliberately highlight a particular idea to the audience, and wants to tell them something that they believe in. A play is better for giving a more open story, in which the audience is independent, and decides what is true about the story. Although the setting and characters are updated in the film, the language is not. As I have already mentioned, personally, I do not believe that this is very effective, because I think that if some parts are modernised, all the parts should be, although it is quite important to keep the conversion similar to the original.

Tension can be shown very well in film, by using particular camera angles or special effects. This means that the tension in the film is shown much better, which is good, but only some elements of tension are properly shown, because the director has chosen to use only certain ideas. Because of the differences between film and theatre, the audience can also be directed towards certain elements of tension. In film, visual images can be used very well, because it is a visual medium, by using special effects. I do not believe that visual effects are used to a great extent in Macbeth on the Estate.

The images used are not particularly used much more than they would be in a play. I do not believe that the potential for visual effects is used fully. Instead, the film loses some of the quality of the language from the play, which is an oral medium, making the film a less effective adaptation. It may be true, though, that the director has chosen to do this because what she wants to tell us is done much more subtly by using changes in the characters and setting. The soliloquies in the film are not adapted from the play very much.

No elements that are exclusive to film are used, such as visual effects, making the soliloquies very similar to the originals. This is again because the director only wanted to make subtle changes. The actor can change their character by showing different body language, for example facial expression, and can use different tones to change the meaning of what the character is saying. The way that an actor can change the character is subtle, by changing subtle things not mentioned in the script. The part can be changed in many different ways.

Some of these are quite significant, such as changing the original lines, adding soliloquies and changing things that are described directly in the original script. Others are less significant, and only involve changing parts that are not directly expressed in the original script, for example set locations and body language for the actors to use to help slightly change the emotions and related things, which make up the characters. The main alteration to the characters was to make them seem corrupt and not noble, to put them and society partly to blame for everything.

It is mainly the characters that are very noble in the play who are changed, to make them seem less so. The major of these is King Duncan. In the play, he was known as a good and much-loved king. In the film, although he is liked a lot by the main characters, he has lost his nobility and kingliness. Instead of his castle, he has a social club, and he is very indulgent. Although all of the characters drink and smoke, he does these to more extent, and he almost never seen without a pint of beer.

As well as having un-noble habits, he is also quite a sleazy character. For example, he hassles Lady Macbeth and is unpleasant to some of his servants. He is the main element in the way that the new director shows the environment around Macbeth as being corrupt and his character is changed more extremely than the others, in this way, because he is seen as the figurehead of the nobility in the play, being the most noble. Duncan’s son, Malcolm, seems to be changed to also reflect the corrupt environment, but not as much.

As in the play, he does what his father does, and copies him, but this is different in the film. He joins in with the indulgence, but this could just be the result of the world around him. Like in the play, he is quite good-natured, and a good person. The director could have used this to make suggestions about young people, not just now, but always, compared to adults. I believe that the fact that she shows the young people joining in with what the adults are doing, implies that they copy what the people around them do, and they quickly become just like the rest of society.

The fact that he is a good person, and is not like his father suggests that people are born good and not corrupt, though, and are not like their environment until it indoctrinates them, and it becomes normality to them. This is one of the suggestions that the director makes about society that is true about today and Shakespeare’s day. Donaldbain rarely appears in the film, and he is only slightly changed, in the same way as Malcolm. Banquo is changed much in the same way as the other people around the royalty; he has also lost nobility and is part of the corrupt society.

Fleance remains more or less the same as in the play, but he has more of an element of innocence. He is younger than he seems to be in the film, and he has a very close relationship with his father, relying on him heavily. He seems to be very distressed by the events in the story, and there is strange thing at the end of the film: he points his hand at the camera as if it is a gun, and fires. This could be to show that he has been indoctrinated by the corrupt society, and he is no longer fearful of firing a gun, and killing someone, because Macduff shot Macbeth.

I think that he could symbolise the pure good in the story which struggles to survive in the terrible environment, and then in the end has to give up and be lost into the corruption. Macduff is changed the most in relation to the other characters. In the play, he is Scottish, like most of the other characters, meaning that his background does not make him stand out from the others. On the other hand, in the film, all of the other characters are changed into English people from Birmingham. He, on the contrary, is from the West Indies, and so stands out from the other characters due to his background.

This is to make him more obviously a very significant character in the story. The director has done this because she wants to portray Macduff as more of a main character than in the film, and wants to ask us about whether or not he is really as heroic as he is shown as in the play. This was because the film explores the good and evil in all of the characters more than in the play. In the play, Macduff was very blatantly shown as a purely good character, though in the film, we are made to question ourselves about whether Macduff is really as honourable as he might seem.

The director probably did this because she wanted to show that there can be evil in everyone, and no one is either pure good or pure evil. Making Macduff stand out more helps illuminate what she wanted to convey to the audience. Lady Macduff is one of the characters who has been changed relatively little: in the play, she is quite a good person, and does not have too much character that is shown; also in the film she has little character shown, other than her kindness and motherliness.

Although she joins in with the corrupt society a bit, she only does to moderation, and seems quite innocent. I believe that this was because the director did not want to dilute her messages, and the characters that could not help her portray her messages and did not have much significance were kept quite bland, so as not to take away the focal point from the more important characters. The innocence may have slightly helped a suggestion of feminism. The three witches are changed a lot from the film: they have become three children.

I believe that the director chose to do this to help her argument about the corrupt society; she implies that they may not really have any powers, and they just cause the characters to believe in the supernatural, and so carry out the predictions themselves. This implication can be valid to show that today’s society is corrupt, and may have changed since Shakespeare’s time, but it could also be used to disagree with Shakespeare, and accuse the supposed supernatural occurrences of his day on the general nature of people. Lady Macbeth is one of the few characters that have had less blame put on her than in the play for the events in the story.

The audience is made to feel sympathy for her, unlike in the play, which is done in a number of ways, for example by inventing something about some lost child. The changes to her are all part of the general trend that the characters’ personalities are diluted into being partially good and partially bad, to make everyone, and our society, to blame for the events. I believe that the director very strongly and effectively puts across this message, and makes Lady Macbeth seem more innocent very well. This also suggests a hint of feminism.

There seems to be a hint of feminism in the conversion because the female characters are shown as much more innocent that the male characters, but it is not a very strong hint. Macbeth is also relieved of some blame. In the play, he was portrayed as a thoroughly evil man, and his evil deeds were blamed solely him or the witches controlling him. He is also part of the suggestion that society creates evil, and just does what he does because of his society. The characters are mainly changed to help put across the message that the director wants to give the audience about the story.

She wants to imply certain things about the individual characters, but she also uses this to give a new impression about society. Although she wants to make implications about how today’s society, and how it would change the situation in the story, she may also want to make implications about timeless aspects of society that have always existed, and possibly to disagree with Shakespeare about how society was then. Although Shakespeare made a great deal of suggestions about society, I think the new director has taken the story further, and made new ones, as well as making alterations and her own touches to the original ones.

Although the film seems quite bland and without many of these meanings at first, and it is difficult for the audience to realise these subtle messages when first seen, I think that she has been very successful in showing us her personal feelings about the play and in making suggestions to us about society, as long as the audience can pick them up. Any modernisation of the play inevitably results in the loss of some of its social and historical significance. This is because to understand what is meant by the play, people would need to know what the world was like at the time, and what was happening.

When a play is modernised, it stops being about that world, and is about the modern world. There are a lot of modern issues in the film. Some of these are similar to those found in the original play and are only modified, and some are completely new, and are just relevant to modern life. An example of one which is only modified is the violence. The film shows that violence still exists, but in compliance with the idea of there being no nobility, the fighting is changed into dishonourable gang warfare. The modernisation is equally as much about the original play and modern society. Most of the messages behind it concern both in different ways.

The best example of an idea, which complies with both, is the idea of no nobility. It works to do with the modern world because it could imply that the nobility is lost, but it could also imply that it never existed, and the people in Shakespeare’s time were just as bad as now. My argument is mainly about how the director has used lots of minor alterations to tell us of her opinion of the original story. I believe that she has used the modernisation to make it easier for modern people to understand, but also as a tool to suggest that what Macbeth does is not entirely the fault of the people who were seen as completely evil before.

I think she was very successful in taking Shakespeare’s meanings on further, and developing new, separate ideas, as well as some contrasting with him, for example, not showing the main characters as completely good or evil, which I believe adds a very good personal touch to it, and shows very subtly, yet effectively, her personal beliefs. The main ideas I believe she wanted to put across are: nobody is completely to blame; everyone has no evil and some good; a hint of feminism; the world of Shakespeare’s time exists with us today; there could be other possibilities of why the events in Macbeth happened, that Shakespeare did not include.

I think that the film can be appreciated on many different levels: as a simple modernisation for easy understanding, and also as a subtly constructed message about the personal feelings of one person, which can be enjoyed by the observant audience, and can also prompt us to think about what we think about the story, and to wonder what it is really about.

At first in the orphanage, Solomon goes through indoctrination, and the ideas are presented to him. From there it seems that he begins to change, but gets reinforcement when the bombs begin to I fall after the candy incident. In the interaction with the German troops, he adapts by lying on who he is really is to survive, and make it through the events. The theme of adapting ties with Judaism, because as Jews were expelled from place to place, as they moved they changed to fit into environment, and lastly survive through time.

This Idea becomes visible because s Solomon moves from place to place, he changes his Identity to adapt and survive. However this Is not only a literal change of his Identity. At a point he pulls his skin on his pens In attempt to make It look Like he Is not circumcised. This Is a physical change that he tries to perform, but Is not able to do so In the end. From here It Is clear that he wants to hide out, but every time it is a change that goes with hiding his religion and the ideas that create that religious ideology. In the movie, adaptability becomes a need to survive, and in sense has relation to Judaism. Within the roots of Judaism has the sense of movement to find out that the ideas have dispersed. In the movie, the sense that he is exiled from his identity, and at times it seems that he is far out, and cannot come back. But as the plot develops, he attempts to return back to his true identity, but then to be caught within the lines of the Germans yet again. But then in the end he ends up returning to his real identity. But as he comes back, he learns that his family Is dead except for his brother, and In sense the family is dispersed away from each other.

In the movie Europe Europe, there are various themes that are apparent. But the idea of adaptability to survive comes up over and over through the movie. It establishes that in the end the true identity that comes from your cultural background, ends up, at times having oneself to change for survival. Within the movie Solomon changes to survive, in hope that he may see the light in the end of tunnel. Through this ordeal, he confronts his religious beliefs and has doubts about them. But over and over through specific scenes he is reinserted that belief is still strong tit him.

Through his perils he encounters various events, when these events take a turn for the worse; the belief is restored through some specific event, or him being saved from revealing his real identity. Solomon changes himself not to oppose his beliefs or even his religion, but more so to survive. From Judaism the idea of exile implies that you leave, and upon leaving you slightly alter yourself to fit In, and blend From here one can conclude that In various manners, Solomon performs an act that is identified within in his religion.

Solomon survives Dye slung ten concept AT adapt TTY Tanat comes Walt n ten Idea AT exile, and is though he alters his belief, he is reinserted by his beliefs yet again that they are in reality in him. Even when he tries to pull his skin to cover his circumcision he fells the pains, and learns that the identity follows him regardless if he lives with them in the open, or if he attempts to hide them. Solomon holds the idea of adaptability to secure his life, and at the time it was one of his main concerns, and he successfully does so.

I chose this film due to its difference to conventional filmmaking, as instead of glorifying the main characters, the area and plot, it shows fault and illustrates the main characters as sad and unhappy. I chose to do this review on the opening minutes of the film describing in detail the camera shots and plot, as it would seem to the viewer watching for the first time.

The opening scene is a medium shot of the main character’s daughter lying on a bed talking. The screen is fuzzy, to give the impression of looking through a video camera. The daughter is talking to someone behind the camera, giving the impression of talking to the viewer or audience. She is talking about how much she dislikes and hates her father (Lester, the main character). This gives the impression of watching a personal film and the viewer is involved, as it appears at first that the character is talking to the audience until the hidden person filming speaks. The scene ends when the character behind the camera offers to kill the girl’s father. The screen goes blank and the film title appears in medium red print on a black background, central to the screen. This sudden change from shot is to represent the plot to end a life, as the transition to a blank black screen.

The next shot after the title is a top shot of a typical suburban American street on a slow zoom in towards the road. There is a narrative, male voice over of the main character Lester, describing his death. This would appear to fit with the previous scene of the daughter talking about murdering her father This creates a feeling of curiosity and suspense throughout the film, for the viewer, who is waiting to see what could have created such a gap between father and daughter. This effect of giving away the ending in the first scene is very effective in creating constant suspense throughout the film up to the dramatic climax. It has been used in many films and plays including William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet.

Gradually when the camera zooms in the shot switches to a bird’s eye view of the main character lying in his bed, alone. This first shot of him shows him as lonely or incomplete even though he has a family. The camera then changes to a close up of his face, which appears sad and disorientated, further showing his dislike for his current lifestyle. There is then a jump cut to a pair of slippers on the floor next to the bed, being

filmed from under the bed.

This shot represents an ordered and scheduled lifestyle

as the slippers must have been placed neatly next to the bed the previous night. The next frame switches to a medium long shot of the main character (Lester) masturbating in the shower. The effect of this is to shock the audience yet at the same time inspire pity at his frustrated and dull life as he continues to narrate over the film about himself, showing little embarrassment.

The next scene is a close up of a Rose flower, which is then cut from the plant by a pair of pruning sheers. The Rose is constantly seen throughout the film, as well as rose petals, however rarely alive. They are usually in vases or on show. The roses, I feel, represent the lifestyle of the family. The rose looks perfect and appears very beautiful however it is dead. The family are similar, as they appear to have everything most people want, their health, nice house, money yet they are not happy. The roses are a constant theme throughout the film, I feel to remind us of the families unhappiness. The next frame sees the camera switch to a medium long shot of Carolyn (the main character’s wife) holding the freshly cut rose in her hand. This shot represents that she too was once alive but is now dying inside like the rose.

All in all I found this film extremely interesting and thought provoking, I would recommend it to anybody who enjoys twisting plots, amazing acting and some of the most brilliant (and strange) characters in modern day cinema. The slow unravelling of the plot keeps you guessing until the very end of the film, as well as challenging modern day society and depicting modern day family life and the hypocrisy of Suburban America.

The Concept of Bartering as Adapted by the Film In Time, and Its Implications. HAS 2013 Prices, Values, and Money Contents 1 Introduction of the characteristics of the genres thriller, action, and drama, making it fairly complex and capable of providing several different perspectives as well as various points of analysis, from the general plot to the greater cultural backgrounds. The film centers on the concept of time being utilized as the primary currency in a modernized world which is set a century ahead of the present.

Due to intentional genetic engineering money is no longer available in the material form used in today’s society, but has been replaced by time, which can be exchanged for other goods or forms of labor. The actual value of this new type of currency is undeniably not purely symbolic as is the case with today’s form of money, but it is innately linked to the length of one’s own lifetime. Precisely this linkage is what relates this financial concept to that of bartering, and the adaptation of which will be the main topic – alongside with its societal implications – of this paper.

Generally speaking the aim of this paper is to study a different conceptualization of exchange – regardless of its unrealistic possibility of enforceability – through an analysis of the concept of time being used as a substitute for money as presented in the film In Time, comparing it with the Aristotelian concept of bartering in an attempt to categorize and define the principles of this alternative form of exchange and its effect on the economy.

Following this topic the paper will draw on Aristotle concept of liberality, which is also of importance within the film, inflation as such, and a short analysis of the social class system created by a fictional society run by time. These points should provide further understanding of today’s system of exchange, hills enforcing a more creative and practical approach, ultimately highlighting negative and positive aspects of the current system. Time as Currency The film’s concept of time runs as follows: from the age of 25 years onwards every individual is granted a lifetime of one further year, which begins to count down on their 25th birthday. From then on, the amount of time one has left to live depends on the acquisition of further time, or the expenditure which will inevitably thus ensue in Odder to purchase food and other necessary goods, such as clothes, housing, and electricity; time has become the universal currency.

When a person’s clock reaches O, that person dies immediately. The presence of sickness or other natural causes of death are not elaborated on within In Time. The currency of time as used in the film demands an exchange of a certain amount of time for other goods – and can even be exchanged for time itself at the bank in the form of a loan.

Labor and services are paved for with time, and the wages allocated to different types of labor may be relationally comparable to those used in today’s society with regard to low-wage Jobs which require little to no education and gig-wage Jobs which usually require at least some sort of education and/or a certain degree of power, such as the Jobs of managers, professors, pilots, and doctors. Daily life and routines seem very much similar to today’s system, with the exception of a higher death rate, however, even casinos and banks are shown in the film and seemingly fulfill the same function they do today.

One’s time status – which is comparable to the bank balance of today – is constantly on display in the individual scenes, making it easy for by-passers to inform themselves of one another’s wealth, lest he or she should wear long sleeves or another type of clothing capable of hiding the numbers from view. For example, in the scene in which Will Salsa and Sylvia Weiss swim in the dark the watch presents the only source of light along with the lighting from the mansion, which in itself shares an innate connection with time through its immense worth (see figure 1).

The only three obvious differences between the way time is used and the way money is used today lies in the following: firstly, the country has been manually divided into ‘time zones’, the crossing of which itself costs time – travel today only raises costs in question of transportation. Secondly, the fact that time is constantly being spent by an individual – somewhat unintentionally – Just by being alive, whereas money on the other hand retains its value and can only be spent intentionally, and thirdly, that there seems to be no form of taxation or even individual fortune tracking.

The government is, however, keen on surveillance, which becomes evident through the large amount of cameras which are situated seemingly everywhere, and through monitors which convey the proportional distribution of time – therefore wealth – throughout the United States; the main purpose of this is to ensure that wealth continues to follow the geographical pattern which was dictated by the government, so that the very wealthy time zones continue to harbor the largest proportion of the country’s wealth, while the poorer areas share very little wealth between them.

The film focuses on two specific time zones: the very wealthy New Greenwich – home of the Weiss family, and the poorer Dayton – home of the Salsa family, which illustrates the extreme social discrepancies achieved through differences in wealth. Bartering The concept of bartering is constantly being revised and today means a form of exchange where a good or certain form of labor is exchanged for another good or certain form of labor, whereby both of the goods or the labor in question are separable from their possessors and carry palpable value – usually in terms of their use and quality – as in, for example, the exchange of berries for milk and vice versa; both of these goods are subject to intrinsic value, the primary one being the function of satiating and sustaining a human being.

According to Aristotle, however, the concept of bartering carries a slightly different meaning. Firstly, Aristotle differentiates between types of property according to how hose are acquired, for example through hunting, or agricultural processes.

These acquisitions demand time, which may be reduced by level of skill, therefore it is only logical that individuals should first and foremost pursue tasks for which they possess the required skills, basic required goods, or geographical advantages – for example a hunter living near a forest with a large quantity of game, or a wheat farmer with a sufficient amount of land available to him – and then exchange the in – excess acquired – good for a good which is more difficult or more important for the man in question to obtain.

The value of each good is measured individually by each of the partners or group of individuals with the same interest partaking in the exchange, Shoes may be exchanged for a house, cattle for horses, eggs for wood, harvest labor for bread, and so on and so forth. Essentially the value of each good is constantly being revised, there is no one form of currency, money in today’s form does not exist, a central market is not existent, and the government – should there be some sort of government present – has no impact on bartering as such. 4 Time as Currency in Association with Bartering

As mentioned above, the currency of time within the film In Time carries an intrinsic value – that of being capable of influencing the length of one’s life. Money in the material form used today does not have as acute an influence on the length of one’s life apart from its use in acquiring medicine or food from another human being, however, time too must pay for these goods nit the film. Following the traditional concept of bartering, man-made products or labor are exchanged for other man-made products or labor, however, time, as such, can be classed as neither f the two.

Time is universally granted and – although man cannot alter time itself, he can – in this specific setting – gain more of it, or lose some or all of it, thereby ‘bartering’ with his own life. At this point it may also be relevant to acknowledge the circumstance of time being an infinite concept in terms of gaining, and yet, it is certainly possible to be deprived of any time at all – by society, by oneself, or by the greater powers of the universe, leading to immediate death.

The fact that time is, however, the only globally accepted currency – currency eyeing a theoretic opposition to the concept of bartering, is somewhat of a negation of the possibility of seeing this system as a form of bartering. In bartering the changeability of a good or of labor is subject to the interest another has in it, and whether or not the individual – or group of individuals – is capable of exchanging this for a good or for labor of their own which is of interest to the partner of exchange.

In a typical bartering society there would be no primary or main good available for transfer, and certainly none by which value could be measured in any form, as time r the dollar can. Goods would be dependent on the separate circumstances of each individual, and their values would be subject to constant revisal. Currency as such is defined as being a system of money in general use in a particular country (Oxford English Dictionary, 2013).

Aristotle intense occupation with the concept of slavery amongst men can, however, not be analyzed via the film, as slavery in its original form does not play a role, because modern human rights forbid inequality among mankind. The population of Dayton is indeed, to a certain extent, enslaved to the government, as he government regulates inflation and thereby death rates, and due to governmental ‘time keepers’ – comparable to rope-men in contemporary societies – who are empowered to relieve individuals of time should they be accused of having acquired it without sufficient rights, or in case of other criminal allegations.

Prisons are naturally impossible institutions in poorer societies run by time, as inmates would not be capable of earning enough time to keep themselves alive during their stay without further work, which instead leads them to inevitable death. Aristotle coins the term ‘liberality’ in regard to money, describing a liberal man as one who is neither “acquisitive nor retentive of money, but is ready to part with it, and does not value it for himself, but only with a view to giving” (Aristotle. The Ethics of Aristotle. Trans. J. Thomson. England: Penguin Books, 1953. Print. ).

In Time portrays protagonist Will Salsa as becoming somewhat of a liberal man. Toward the end of the film’s development, he and Sylvia Weiss – daughter of one of the richest men in the world at the time – abide by the Robin Hood principle, which souses on the redistribution of wealth in order to reduce economic inequality. The most fascinating aspect here, is that the ‘wealth’ in question is far more life-giving, than money in the standard form, which certainly buys food, however, the human being is capable of living for far longer without food than without ‘time’ as portrayed in the film itself.

Strictly speaking this means that an extreme form of liberality is achieved through the disregard Salsa and Weiss show in relation to the value of their own retention of time, and the selflessness they are capable of embodying, even at such high costs. The film’s opening scene introduces Salsa as being confined state by – as is later revealed – the constant need to find more and more time in order to prolong his life, putting him in a metaphorical ongoing fight for life.

The scene shows Salsa from a medium close-up, standing behind a barred window and looking outside (see figure 2), before switching to a medium longest inside the room, which is almost completely dark save for the backlogging coming in through the window, again emphasizing the confinement Salsa must endure while wistfully looking out of the window in yearning for freedom (see figure 3). Freedom is, however, of course not available to Salsa. He is physically free to leave his apartment at any given time, but he will never be able to overcome the hold that the financial system has on him – at least not legally, but this he has yet to discover. Inflation The ability – and strongly pronounced desire – to acquire more and more time inevitably leads to higher life expectancies, and therefore also overpopulation. The government has come up with a solution to this problem: inflation. Through inflation individuals with little time on them are subject to a higher mortality risk, and this is owe the population is regulated, so as to avoid an increase in societal problems, such as a heightened crime rate, lack of food, water, or medicine, sanitary issues, etc.

The effects of inflation in poverty stricken areas are illustrated in one of the scenes at the very beginning, during which the mother of the protagonist dies on her way home because she does not have enough time available to her to pay for the inflated bus fares. It is, however, important to note that, although inflation takes place in the same way it does in today’s society, the currency itself, I. E. Mime, is not affected by inflation as such: physically an hour of time remains the same amount of a person’s lifetime, the only change in worth comes from the good being acquired by time, which then costs more.

At the same time this circumstance underlines the lack of individualizing existent within the film, the effect of which is achieved by the apparent stereotypical disrespect which the lower classes are confronted with and deaths which occur on the streets of the poorer time zones, people being so used to seeing these corpses that they no longer pay heed to their presence and have mingle accepted the irrelevance of their lives in the social system.

Inflation is not possible in standard bartering as conceptualized by Aristotle. A commodity’s value is determined by its degree of desirability, and so in times of famine edible goods are naturally more highly valued than, for example, in times of good harvest. This point further distances the concept of time as currency from being a form of bartering as it is made clear that inflation of time prices is very much determined and arranged by the government as is perspective’s needed, not as is natural. Influence on Social Class The lower classes tend to have little more than a few hours on their clocks, which means that affected individuals must move fast, are far more susceptible to crime due to the instinctive incessant need to survive, are prone to resorting to the vulgar sport of ‘fighting’ each other for time in front of an audience, and are subject to more casualties than the higher classes with more time on them are.

Social mobility is fairly limited, especially in the poorer time zones, as the search for more time plays an acute role in the search for a partner, however limited this time may be through he constant need to work more. Aristotle describes slaves as being strong enough to absolve the menial duties life presents mankind with, while the freemen are useless for physical labor, but useful for many other purposes of civic life.

This can easily be related to the correlation between the upper and lower classes in the film, where the lower classes work in factories or on the streets doing manual labor and producing goods for the upper classes which they can hardly afford themselves, while the upper classes either busy themselves with tasks – if at all – which demand brain power of a stable financial Asia, all the while exploiting the lower classes. Sylvia view on the clock and time as the sole form of exchange available is as follows: “The clock does no one any good.

The poor die and the rich don’t really know how to live. We can live forever if we don’t do anything stupid. Doesn’t that scare you? ” (In Time. Dir. Andrew Niccole. Twentieth Century Fox. 2012. Film. ) This describes two of the main issues with which society is presented: the fear and thus ensuing motivation of sudden death, as well as the lack of motivation one may encounter on owning a large amount of time, for there is then of course no longer a need to work ND yet these individuals have so much time that they no longer know how they may occupy themselves. Film Analysis In Time incorporates a combination of many different types of scenes, ranging from dark to light, hectic to slow, extreme close ups to extreme longest, all of which work together to help emphasize the extremity of using time as currency, as well as traumatizing and detailing its effects on society.

As mentioned above, the clock displayed on the forearm of each and every individual within the movie is often used keeping the audience’s perspective constant and attentive to the ‘bigger picture’, which the film conveys, as is the case in the swimming scene with Salsa and Well, where the viewer is reminded not to lose himself in the comparatively rather banal romantics, but to stay alert and capable of interpretation on a larger level. The lack of individualism in this type of society is also illustrated.

From the first scene onwards – in which Salsa is shown looking outside through the bars of a window – the clammy and fearful atmosphere driven by survival instinct alone without any visually explained causes is constantly reinforced, for example in the scene in which Will Salsa’ mother dies in the middle of an empty road from no hysterical cause, or the moment in which the man who gives Salsa over a hundred years simply seems to fall off a bridge filmed from an extreme longest, making the viewer feel all the more helpless and emotionally affected. Conclusion Time is not merely a medium of exchange in the way money is, it is a good or service, which can be directly exchanged for other goods. Therefore, it is essentially distantly related to Aristotle concept of bartering, consequentially combining the traditional concept of exchange with the less modern and, in today’s society, rarely enforced concept of bartering.

However, one distinct difference lies in the fact that the society Aristotle focused on was to force individuals to be responsible for acquiring their goods individually, whereas in the modern society presented by the film organized work and an advanced market are the predominant themes in which individuals are far from producing their own goods directly. The use of time as the only legally recognized currency ultimately intertwines the length of one’s life with the material quality of life itself – what can man physically acquire and how much of it?

This adds the component of natural survival instinct to the motivation for finding and keeping work, and has the distinct effect of eliminating unemployment in cases of poverty. The effect this has on crime rates is most likely ambiguous, as the sanctions which a criminal would face are almost certainly life threatening, and yet, if one’s life is in danger due to lack of time, he or she is far more likely to commit an illegal act in order to acquire more time than otherwise.

These points make this financial system far more interesting on a societal level than anthropometry systems, as society’s thinking is deeply affected by a more acute occupation with life itself and the inevitable death, the proximity of which is by far more dependent on one’s way of life – how much time is spent working, where and as what, with whom one chooses to spend time, etc.

Status seems to play a rather large role in the upper classes, even more so than in today’s society, as it seems that lack of status is greeted with disrespect, as is demonstrated by the waitress at the hotel in which Will Salsa has breakfast, by her comment on the speed at which he moves. Naturally, if one has a very large amount of time there is less of a need to move fast – quite on the contrary, moving slowly is somewhat of a prerequisite to avoid having too little to do with so much time.

An analysis of this concept allows for the realization that the current financial concept of money can be comparatively seen as lacking in certain fields. Firstly, the to the fact that the motivation to work is not as high as it is in the film – sanctions would be needed in order to increase the motivation. Secondly, the film highlights the extreme differences in between different social classes, which promotes inequality where it should not – a reevaluation of proportional taxation a integrated living areas could provide possible improvements.

Thirdly, liberality is naturally a more common phenomenon in the current society than in the film’s society, as there is less at stake, and inflation is mainly influenced by governmental regulations and has far less to do with the availability of a good or service. Through the replacement of money with time a new form of financial system is introduced, which is loosely related to the concept of bartering.

Many say that when comparing movies and books they differ a lot. Books provide a more detailed viewing of characters and the events that occur, whereas the movies leave out Information and sometimes deter the moral of the story. In the movie and book; Ell Suppliant Sarah, it can be seen that movies based on books do not portray the same events and themes occurred. Ultimately this takes away from emotions one feels towards certain situations. Differences can be seen in the relationships between certain characters.

Also the way traits of certain characters are shown. Moreover, some events that happened were not the same and took away from the verbal meaning of the story. To begin with, the first difference that Is seen Is the relationships between certain characters, especially Julia and Bertrand. In the book, it can be seen that their relationship Is very tense and not so strong. This can be seen when Bertrand insults Julia in in front of his assistant about how Americans think they are the best and Julia thinks to herself (De Rosary, 36-37).

From this quote one can see that the relationship between Julia and Bertrand lacks love and affection. Julia feels silly and ridiculed by Bertrand and does not understand why he chooses to act this way. However, in the movie Antoine is not in this scene and their relationship is strong and is working well. As well, later on Dana lee roman, Julia finds out she is pregnant and thinks Bertrand will be happy to know this. After telling him, she finds out that he is not happy she is devastated and this can be seen when she says >(156-166).

This quote shows how terrible and angry Julia feels that Bertrand does not want to keep the baby. In movie, It Is seen that Julia is a little upset, however she quickly recovers and It does not seem to bother her for too long. For both instances. The book has a ore detailed way of portraying her thoughts whereas the movie fails to do so. In the end this takes away from emotions and attachment viewers should feel towards her and leaves them surprised when they split up. Thus, that is how relationships are changed movie and book.

Not only Is there a difference between relationships, but also the way characters are shown. In the book, Sarah’s character Is naive and Innocent; however In the movie it Is Intelligent and clever. While at the camp, Rachel makes the plan to escape and at first Sarah hesitates, but then agrees. This can be seen when Rachel says Rachel lavish connivance. Less aliment s’©cheaper. Less aliment quitter get 32). Although, in the movie, Sarah brings up the idea and tells Rachel. Moreover, in the book when Sarah and Rachel escape, the police officer knows Sarah and eventually lets her go, (139).

Nevertheless, In the movie the police man does not know her and lets her go because of the sympathy he feels for all the kids. Through the events that happened at the camp, the differences were clearly noticeable. Sarah’s character may have been changed to be more courageous because she is constantly reminded that she is to blame for hiding Michel. This is because her arenas yell at her for doing this whereas in the book, they do not put too much emphasis on It, illustrating that her parents know she is too young to understand the current situation.

This takes away from her loving character and the fact that she under the pressure of her parents blaming her for what she did. Hence, this changes the way Sarah’s character is shown in both the movie and the book. Furthermore, UN tauter difference est.. Queue, Dana lee roman, Julia and Zoe both go to America, although, in the movie Julia ends up going alone. This was different in the book because in the book Zoe plays an important role in encouraging her mother. This is significant because she is the one who forces Julia to not give up and actually go and meet William. Therefore, when she meets William, Zoe is not with her.

Taking out these events takes away from Zoo’s character and makes Julia seem stronger than she actually she is. Furthermore, this leads to William being in denial of his mother’s past. In the book he is surprised by what he learns and chooses to be ignorant and neither William nor his father know about Sarah’s past. However, in the movie they add in a scene of William meeting his sick father. In it he learns that his father actually knows what happened but never chose to tell him. This is significant because it changes the story as it is a secret that only he does not know about.

As a result, this takes away from the whole purpose of Cilia’s Journey of being able to tell William about his mother’s past. Also this alters the theme of forgetting the past, as in the book Sarah keeps to herself and does not tell anyone. Otherwise in the movie Sarah tells someone but still ends up committing suicide because it was too much to handle. This shows that even the process of sharing her story didn’t take away the burden from her heart. Therefore, it is evident that movies based on books do not portray the same events ND themes occurred and takes away from the emotions one feels towards certain situations.

While reading a book, it allows one to use their creativity and imagine what is happening. Nonetheless movies Just show what is happening and sometimes end up changing the storyline. As seen in Ell Specialty Sarah, many things were changed, including the relationships between characters, the traits of certain characters, and changes in events. In the end, this altered the themes and made it hard for viewers to understand the story. Thus, it can be concluded that movies based on books have a lot of differences.