Perfection and Exception in Rough Magic - Assignment Example

?One of the difficulties that a playwright or filmmaker faces with regards to parodying a traditional and well respected canon of theater is with regards to seeking to differentiate this work from the original in an effective way. Oftentimes, many playwrights and filmmakers have utterly and completely failed with regards to this differentiation due to the fact that they either make an error on the side of safety, and to closely copy the plot, character dynamics, and mechanisms of presentation, or they deviate to broadly from the work which has been the inspiration for their piece and present the parody and/or reinvention/reanimation/reinterpretation of the play in such a way that it comes across as an entirely unrelated and without merit. Due to such a pitfall, it is oftentimes rare that such a feat can be performed in an efficient and engaging manner. Doubtless, there are many ways in which the overall level of engagement can seek to be maximized. Although it is not the purpose of this brief response to elaborate upon the ways in which a playwright or filmmaker can attempt to differentiate without deviating to greatly from the original inspiration, it must be understood that one of the more effective means that this can be accomplished is by subtly yet clearly differentiating the characters from the original in such a way as they provide a level of understanding and nuance as compared to the work to which they are referencing. Within this brief analysis, the author will consider the means by which two of the characters in Rough Magic are distinctly differentiated and represented in a unique way as compared to two of the characters within William Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Finally, at level of analysis will also be given with regards to whether or not this author believes that Rough Magic has the innate potential to be a great film. With regards to the first character which will be discussed, that of Prospero, Rough Magic portrays him in an entirely different light than did William Shakespeare within The Tempest. Within Shakespeare’s play, Prospero is portrayed as a bellowing, drunken, and un-poetic brute. This of course as a unique dynamic Shakespeare’s play the fact that the other characters are invariably forced into action and reaction based on the bombastic and rather infantile choices and actions that Prospero makes. Without deviating too far from the Shakespearean interpretation of Prospero, Aguirre-Sacasa defines him in a more nuanced manner as individual caught between an ongoing family feud in which he must take an active part. Rather than setting Prospero apart as the embodiment and personification of evil, the playwright reveals a more postmodernist interpretation by which absolute good or bad is not laid squarely upon the character of Prospero (Rough Magic, pg 4). In such a way, the level of differentiation and the means by which absolute good and bad are determined within Aguirre-Sacasa’s play as compared to Shakespeare’s are definitively noted with regards to the totality of Prospero’s character. In much the same way, the character of the Ariel is differentiated from William Shakespeare’s character as well as. Whereas the Ariel of Shakespeare’s play is something of an ethereal demigod that is suffered the torture of imprisonment, the Ariel of Aguirre-Sacasa’s play takes upon many of the less than favorable qualities that are somewhat unexpected. It is the understanding of this particular author that the main reason for doing this was to create something of a differential regards the way in which Shakespeare presented the character as compared to the way it was presented within this particular flight. In short, the representation of Ariel within William Shakespeare’s The Tempest was the quintessential woman scorned. Although the same can be true with regards to Rough Magic, the key differential is that the damsel in distress dynamic is far less evidenced (Rutter, 2003) Within such an understanding, Ariel are self comes represent a horrific and terrifying creature that is understood and defined by a supreme desire and lust for vengeance from the very outset until the very conclusion of the play (Rough Magic 4, 17, 22). Further reducing dynamic with regards to this differential is the fact that the Ariel of William Shakespeare’s play is necessarily one whose character it falls throughout the play; however, as compared to Rough Magic, the character of Ariel is almost asked in stone and understood as immutable the very outset. Lastly, with respect to whether or not Rough Magic has the potential to be a great film, it is the belief of this author that the answer to such a question is a resounding no. As can be seen in so many countless instances throughout the, the transition between the stage and the silver screen is often a cumbersome process drains the life blood of the original script into such a lifeless interpretation that the viewer, having already witness the play itself, is left wondering why any movie studio would have bastardized the content so great a degree. The first reason why it is the belief of this author that the play would not make an easy or convenient transition to the silver screen is with regards to the bonds of understanding that exists within stage act itself. As has been exhibited, the level of differential between Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Rough Magic is something that requires a unique appreciation and understanding for theater and theatrical performance as well as nuanced meanings that both of these playwrights attempted to demonstrate within their respective works. In such a way, it is doubtful that the same level of nuance and understanding easily be exhibited upon the silver screen. Or, if it was, would be almost impossible to utilize the correct acting dynamics that would be required to pull off such a feat. Similarly, one of the reasons that Rough Magic was able to derive such a great deal of the claim was due to the fact that it was an extraordinarily low-budget production that appealed to a specific group of individuals within theater and art communities. Although it is possible, with the right backing and support, that the same dynamics could be translated to film, it is highly doubtful that any of the film studios, even inclusive of independent film studios, would be willing to sacrifice profitability in order to ensure that the same dynamics were met with Ben a film adaptation of the play. Lastly, it is the belief of this author that the dynamics represented within the play would not translate well to the silver screen due to the fact that, as with most plays, the action development is most specifically centric upon the means by which the characters interact with one another and not the scenes or special effects that are able to be presented to the viewer; a reality of current cinema that is all too prevalent As can be seen from the foregoing analysis, it is the belief of this author that the play in question exhibits a certain degree of perfection and exception. In brief, it is never an easy task to seek to attempts a parody and/or reinvention of classical literature. Rather, it is a dangerous technique that oftentimes results in the complete and utter collapse of the storyline and disk interest within the audience. Yet, nevertheless, Rough Magic is able to accomplish such a task with a relative amount of relative ease. It is the further belief of this author that this ultimately the fact that the characters within Rough Magic have been differentiated to precisely the right degree without forcing or divorcing the plot line to distinctly from the original work that is channeled within this play. Read More