1. Read the two existing reviews above and compare/ contrast. What things do you agree or disagree with, after having seen the film?
I agree that the film is definitely bloody and grim. I disagreed with the cridict who said that the play needed to be more complex, I liked it simple and it made it easier to understand.
2. What kinds of things could the medium of cinema provide that a stage production could not? What are the disadvantages of a film version? Comment on use of costumes, sound/music, lighting, character appearance, and locations / sets.
They definitely could not have done those gory scenes the way that they were done in the movie, they can't cut of his head in real life. They couldn't do all the stunts the way that they were done in the movie. I think one of the advantages of a stage performance is that the actors are able to connect with the audience in a way that a movie is unable to.
3. What artistic liberties did Polanski take, as you compare the written play with his version?
He chose to add that scene at the end which wasn't in the book.
4. What do you think went well with the film? What would you have changed if you had been the director? Would you defend Polanski's decisions to make this so gory?
I didn't understand why everyone had to be naked in this, it just felt so unnecessary. I think all the gory effects are needed because it gives you an accurate representation of what would have actually happened in this time period.
コメント