Romeo and Juliet - Lurhman and Zeffreli Comparison Essay Example for Free

Romeo and Juliet Lurhman and Zeffreli Comparison Essay Romeo and Juliet. Over the past 500 years there have been numerous adaptations for stage, musicals and films based and interpreted from the original tragic love story of Romeo and Juliet. Written by Shakespeare in 1500’s and Juliet is undeniably Shakespeare’s most successful and well known play. The tragic story line filled with unfortunate events and heartbreaks are something that appealed to the Elizabethan era audience. The two most well known movie interpretations would have to be the version done by Baz Luherman and Zeherelli. Zeffireli’s version of Romeo and Juliet was a very traditional one and was set in Verona where the original play was located. It was written and directed by Franco Zeffireli and starred Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting. Released in 1968 the film was the most financially successful film made up to that time because of the young teenage audience it had attracted. Although it may not be appealing to the teenagers in this century. It followed the Original storyline very clearly and the costumes were very much like those it the time it was made. Baz Luherman;s version of Romeo + Juliet and starring Leonardo Di Caprio and Claire Danes was a modernization of William Shakespeare’s play. It still had the original Shakespearean dialogue but the Montague’s and Capulet’s were represented as opposing business empires. Very much unlike the original storyline there were guns, cars, and very modern sense of clothing. Filmed in Mexico and Miami It was set in the fictional Verona Beach. This was a very successful version of the story and many viewers around the world loved the great difference in the interpretation. This film was released in 1996 and grossed $11. 1 million in its opening week, ranking #1 at the box office. Act 1 Scene 5 of Romeo and Juliet is a very essential part in understanding the tragedy of the story. It is where they first meet and fall in love at the Capulet’s masquerade ball. Towards to the end of the scene they realize their love would not be allowed because of the history of their feuding families. Juliet being a Capulet and Romeo being a Montague creates confusion and disbelief for the audience. In my opinion the film that portrays this in a better way is Luhermans version. Compared to Zeferellhis traditional movie it keeps the audience interested in what is happening. Some things that contribute to this is the mi –sen –scene music, lighting, camera angles and costumes. The music in Zeherellis movie is very traditional, when Romeo and Juliet meet eyes for the first time in the movie the music becomes soft and sweet, the typical love-song music of Shakespeares time. The setting is at Capulets masquarde ball and in an old castle made from stone and has candle lit lighting. Just like the music, lighting and location the costumes stay very true to the Elizabethan era. There is not much of a variety in the camera angles and it usually focuses on the actors facial expression. This movie would have been more of what Shakespeare intended. Luhermans version on the other hand has a very different atmosphere. This modernized adaptation has much more up tempo and disco music. Although when Romeo and Juliet first meet the slow song ‘Kissing you’ is playing in the background adding an addition of romance to the scene. The lyrics reflect their relationship and is ended with the kissing. The setting is very modern and instead of a masquerade ball there is a costume party. The start of this scene is very upbeat and lively. The lighting is much brighter than Zeherelli’s version and at the beginning there is flashing lights. Luherman was more experimental with his camera angles using medium shots, long shots, tilted angles, and spinning effects making the audience feel more involved in the scene. These two movies have given more of a great depth to the tragic love story of Romeo and Juliet without taking away the beauty of the language. In my opinion Baz Luherman was more successful in appealing his movie to the audience of Australia. It’s was easily more relatable than the older 1968 Franco Zeherelli movie. However he did a great job creating a movie just the wal William Shaksepare would have intende however along with most people of my age I enjoyed and found the Luherman version more enetertainging.

Average Americans vs. Environmentalists :: Environmental Essays

Average Americans vs. Environmentalists American Enterprise magazine (May/June 1999) carried an article by Karl Zinsmeister, titled "Environmentalists vs. Scientists." It's mostly a report on research published by two academics Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter in their book titled Environmental Cancer: A Political Disease. The authors surveyed a cross-section of environmental leaders at organizations such as National Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society. Identically worded survey questions were administered to different groups of scientists. Among the groups surveyed was the American Association for Cancer Research, whose members are specialists in carcinogenesis or epidemiology. It turns out that scientists and environmentalists hold markedly different views. Sixty-seven percent of cancer specialists believe there's no cancer epidemic while only 27 percent of environmental activists hold the same view. Only twenty-seven percent of cancer specialists agree with the statement "industry causes rising cancer rates", while 64 percent of environmentalists do. The scientists didn't trust the media. Only 22 percent of cancer specialists consider the New York Times' reporting on cancer topics to be trustworthy and only six percent found the TV network news to be so. When 400 climatologists, oceanographers and atmospheric scientists were asked whether evidence supports the "greenhouse effect" theory, 41 percent agreed compared to 66 percent of environmentalists. Similarly, 51 percent of energy scientists say nuclear power plants are safe compared to only 10 percent of environmentalists. Environmentalists not only differ from scientists but are markedly different from the general public as well. Environmental activists are a narrow elite: 76 percent are male, 97 percent are white and a third have incomes over $100,000. They are unrepresentative of America politically as well. Sixty-three percent describe themselves as liberals compared to 18 percent of the general public. Only six percent are Republicans; ten times as many are Democrats. To the question, "I'd fight for my country, right or wrong," 57 percent of all Americans answered yes while only 9 percent of environmentalists said yes. Environmentalists support causes like race quotas, abortion-on-demand and homosexual rights at rates of 70 to 80 percent, versus 34 to 40 percent of the general public. Rothman and Licther summarized, "Although most Americans are willing to describe themselves as environmentalists, from these data it seems clear that environmental activists do not speak for the public. . . . The perspective and background of this movement's leadership are considerably removed from those of the majority.

If i were the prime minister of India Essay

The Prime Minister of India, aha! The highest executive of the largest democracy of the world, what a promising position, what a status, and Oh! What laurels. However I see this position as it were with a pinch of salt as, it is more a thorny crown on the head of the person who wears it. Dealing with the daily affairs of the country, is not easy, so, this positions, this status, this name are not without the demerits. If I was to be the Prime Minister of India, the first and most difficult thing I would deal with would be the building of the character of the people of the nation. I feel that, all the drawbacks and failures of the country and its people are, mainly due to the lack of character of its people, its Executives, its politicians and all others. Now developing characters is not something that can be done in a day or something that can be imposed on a generation. There is no magic cure for this malady which is inherent in the Indian scene. Since I know that neither can character be infused overnight, nor can it be eliminated from the scene, I would ensure that all bad characters no matter that, are booked for their wrong doings, punished as per the laws of the land. I really believe that even if just a few wrong doers are punished strictly, instead of being shielded by their patrons, then others will not indulge in similar malpractices. I earnestly feel that punishment is the only approach to this Herculean problem of character. If few, yes, just a few are punished all others will be frightened of the consequences of wrong doing. This exercise of punishments I would start from the highest rungs of the ladder and then come downwards, though the lower rungs would get cleaned by themselves if the cleaning be done at the top. The next area of influence I would try to work upon would be the education of the masses. Our education as I understand it had been framed by the British rulers. They had the objective of creating bab es for their Government administration who would slave for them. It is this heritage of creating babus that we have continued for the last so many decades, and made a real mess of our education. The area of higher education has been pampered but the sphere of primary education which lays the foundation of the country ‘s literacy has been neglected totally. I would lay greater stress on primary education and make higher education a choice for the children and that also only according to their choice and merit. I would not allow any admissions in institutes of higher education on the basis of just donations.  My heart feels so very hurt when I see all around me the influence of westernisation in our country. It appears that we have just nothing of our own and we are learning and have learnt everything from the West. A culture as rich as India ‘s having to borrow everything from the west depicts the slave mentality of us Indians and I feel very sad when I see it all around me. My next priority as the Prime Minister would be the Indianisation of the Indians. I do wonder where our culture has disappeared, where our life style and our heritage are. How could we throw such riches of a great culture to the winds? I would infuse the teaching of Indian culture in every school and college. T his would not mean that we stop learning from the west no, not at all. We would continue borrowing all knowhow from the west but, only in spheres in which we have to, not just because it is western but because it is necessary for our growth. Besides all this, I would ensure that social changes are brought about evenly throughout the country, keeping in mind beautiful blend of our culture and the western ethos. For social changes I would mobilise and encourage non Government agencies because I feel that social changes can be brought about smoothly only by social welfare organisation and not laws of the Government. With all these priorities I would also try to ensure infusion of patriotism in the younger generation. Sometimes I really wonder at the whereabouts of our patriots of the early decades of this very Century, where are they, and have we stopped producing the like now? With this much achieved or at least the trend set, I would be happy and a person absolutely satisfied with my achievements. With so much to be done within the country, I would try also to produce good neighbourly relations with all the neighbours of India, as; I believe a good neighbour is an asset to an individual and even country. I would send peace delegations to all the neighbours and invite them on peace missions to India. I do think that such activities would yield satisfactory results and we would have friends all around.

SAFER Makes Safe to Walk in Space

Its like a scene from a science fiction movie nightmare: an astronaut is working outside a spacecraft in the vacuum of space when something happens. A tether breaks or maybe a computer glitch strands the astronaut too far from the ship. However it happens, the end result is the same. The astronaut ends up floating away from the spacecraft into the endless void of space, with no hope of rescue. Thankfully, NASA developed a device for space walking that keeps an astronaut safe while working outdoors to prevent such a scenario from happening in real life.   Safety for EVAs Space walks, or extravehicular activities (EVAs), are an important part of living and working in space. Dozens were needed just for the the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS).   Early missions by both the U.S. and Soviet Union also relied on space walks, with astronauts tethered to their spacecraft by lifelines. The space station cannot maneuver to rescue a free-floating EVA crew member, so NASA got to work to design a safety harness for astronauts who would be working around it without direct connections. Its called Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue (SAFER): a life jacket for space walks. SAFER is a self-contained maneuvering unit worn by astronauts like a backpack. The system relies on small nitrogen-jet thrusters to let an astronaut move around in space. Its relatively small size and weight allow for convenient storage on the station, and let EVA crew members put it on in the station’s airlock. However, the small size was achieved by limiting the amount of propellant it carries, meaning that it can only be used for a limited time. Its intended primarily for emergency rescue, and not as an alternative to tethers, and safety grips. Astronauts control the unit with a hand controller attached to the front of their space suits, and computers assist in its operation. The system has an automatic attitude hold function, in which the onboard computer helps the wearer maintain course. SAFERs propulsion is provided by 24 fixed-position thrusters that expel nitrogen gas and have a thrust of 3.56 Newtons (0.8 pounds) each. SAFER was first tested in 1994 aboard the space shuttle Discovery, when astronaut Mark Lee became the first person in 10 years to float freely in space. EVAs and Safety Space walking has come a long way since the early days. In June 1965, astronaut Ed White became the first American to conduct a space walk. His space suit was smaller than later EVA suits, since it did not carry its own oxygen supply. Instead, a hose to an oxygen supply on the Gemini capsule connected White. Bundled with the oxygen hose were electrical and communication wires and a safety tether. However, it quickly expended its supply of gas. On Gemini 10 and 11, a hose to a nitrogen tank aboard the spacecraft connected a modified version of the handheld device. This allowed the astronauts to use it for a longer period of time. The Moon missions had EVAs starting with Apollo 11, but these were on the surface, and required the astronauts wear full space suits. Skylab astronauts made repairs to their systems, but were tethered to the station. In later years, especially during the shuttle era, the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) was used as a way for an astronaut to jet around the shuttle. Bruce McCandless was the first to try one out, and the image of him floating free in space was an instant hit.   SAFER, which has been described as a simplified version of the MMU, has two advantages over the earlier system. It is a more convenient size and weight and ideal for an astronaut rescue device outside the Space Station. SAFER is a rare type of technology—the kind NASA built hoping that it wont be necessary to use it. So far, tethers, safety grips, and the robot arm have proved adequate to safely keep astronauts where they are supposed to be during space walks. But if they ever fail, SAFER will be ready.