It's an essay about 2 different treatments of Macbeth on screen. It's a pretty decent paper. it's written pretty casualy, but it's good for a first person report.

I chose to view the Orson Welles and Roman Polanski versions of Macbeth. They are some(prenominal) real different interpretations of the same story. Not only because they were made well-nigh 30 years apart, only when also because of a a couple of(prenominal) choices both directors made that virtually shaped the way Macbeth is pictured as a character and as a story. I basically disagree with most of the reviews that I have obtained for a variety of reasons. I had trouble finding reviews written at the time of the release, but never the less they are stock-still reviews that are widely read.

I had capturen Polanskis version in high instill a few years back, but decided to look out it again from a more critical and educated standpoint. I found the film to be very violent both then and upon watching it again found myself closing my look at the same points. This is not a criticism of the film, but an observation. I believe that Macbeth is a violent story, so I agree that most of the violence was necessary. I think that the sets and peculiar(prenominal) effects were amazing. Obviously this was a higher budget film, conflicting Welless version that was made with very scant(p) m peerlessy concord to my reviews. I also found the acting to be amazing. Macbeth, vie by Jon Finch had so much depth and strength to it.



there are so many layers to Macbeth throughout the play and we see an enormous transformation from the beginning to the end. This was done brilliantly. According to one of my reviews by Mr. Wokelstein, a well-known critic, he says,

Polanski conjures up little passion or energy, or even a full stop of empathy in his film. It gets to the point where Macbeth becomes a supporting player in his own play.

If you want to get a full essay, identify it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper