Ágnes Lovas: Teamwork in Our Times

With the advancement of technology working on a project for the school or for one’s workplace has changed a bit. If it comes to teamwork, nowadays people don’t necessarily have to meet up to discuss the things they want to. There are numerous tools with which they can solve this matter more easily.

For instance, one can use Google Documents. One of the members creates a document, then invites all the others via email. The reason why Google Documents is really helpful is that it does not only save every change, but also it is editable by everyone who is invited, furthermore each member can see the changes. What is more, if someone edits the text, or adds a comment to it, the others are notified by an email. Another advantage of it is that since this document can be accessed through google accounts, one does not have to bring along a pen drive if they have WI-FI connection. Although, it has a drawback too, that is to say, we cannot insert pictures into our document.

Another tool which might come in handy is a program called Skype. This program does not only do a good service if we want stay in touch with someone, but it is also helpful to have a live discussion with others without having to agree on a place and time to meet up. This might not be a huge problem if there are only a few members in the group, but the bigger the group is, the harder it is to find a place and the time which is suitable for everyone. With Skype, you only have to make up your mind about time, not to mention that you have more time on your hands, since you saved the amount you would have spent on travelling. In addition, you can have the discussion from the coziness of your own home.

Yet, both Skype and Google Documents are impersonal compared to meeting in a café. These do not replace having a drink in a nice place, and chatting away on relevant, and also on not so relevant topics. So, to sum it up, I would say that all of these advancements of technology are useful, still it would be a shame to forget about the conventional way of meetings. While working on our project, we, the Theatre group used all of these methods to work on our project, and it turned out to be great. We did not only manage to do it in the most comfortable, and enjoyable way, but we also had a great time while doing it.

Picture was taken from:
http://www.avtechpd.com/e-learning-tutorials/

Bánovics Nóra: Bad Guy in Focus

My task with the Film Group in our project work was to take a closer look at the differences between the two versions of the film adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing, according to the directors’ point of view, the camera angles and camera movement. For that we rived a specific scene off both of the movies, namely Joss Whedon’s 2012 version and Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 version. This specific scene was Hero’s and Claudio’s wedding scene which has been proved to be a perfect subject for that, since this is one of the few scenes where every character is present, contributing to the events. While I was observing this particular scene, I could not avoid noticing the difference between the two movies in the view of the emphasis they put on Don John.

Obviously, Don John is one of the main characters - if not the most important -, in the play, the conflict emerges because of him. At the beginning of the wedding scene the spectator already knows that something will happen and in the 2012 version it is even highlighted when the camera focuses on Don John from above, showing his profile as he looks down on Claudio and Don Pedro. We can even notice a self-sufficient smile on his face suggesting that he perfectly knows that his plan has worked. In contrast to this, the 1993 version does not lay particular emphasis on him in that scene, he is not highlighted and the camera does not focus on him directly and for a long time.

Furthermore, in the 2012 version of the movie throughout the wedding scene Don John is set off several times. For example when the events reach its climax the camera focuses on him again, picking him out of the audience as he looks around seeing the consequences of his plan. Again, to this the 1993 version does not pay significant attention, Don John is only perceptible in the background, and even when he speaks we cannot see his face. Contrary to this, in Whedon’s version, when Don John speaks to Claudio half of his body is shown; we are allowed to see his face and his gestures, which characterize the whole movie, while in Branagh’s adaptation usually only the actors’ and actresses’ face is shown in conversations. Moreover, Whedon tries to bring some humour into the scene with highlighting Don John again at the end, stealing a cupcake when he leaves.

 In conclusion, according to the above analysed scene with the mentioned features, in my opinion, Joss Whedon has put more emphasis upon the role of the “bad guy”, highlighting his actions in the events. The spectator’s attention is drawn to him before the trouble occurs, he is in the spotlight in the 2012 version, whereas in the 1993 adaptation he seems more like he hides in the shadow, observes the drama from the background. However, Don John’s effacement does not reduce his importance and his key role in the overall story, Whedon’s decision to focus on him more has turned him into the bad guy more than in Branagh’s representation. 

Vivien Miss: Would Electronic Databases and Digitalised Texts Ultimately Replace the Traditional Book Format? A Review on Texts for Reader by John Jowett

Nowadays the Internet penetrated so much into our lives that we arrange most of our duties and businesses online. But is the exclusive use of electronic databases profitable for scholarly studies and academic research? Is it really sufficient to rely solely on electronic sources and databases? Would electronic databases and digitalised texts ultimately replace the traditional book format? These are questions that John Jowett investigated and analysed in one chapter of his work, Shakespeare and Text.

Jowett argues that digitalised texts are very useful for academic research, and he provides strong arguments for the utility of digital databases. He emphasises the easy searchability of electronic texts and files (165), as, indeed, we can easily browse within digitalised texts by pressing keyboard shortcuts, and we immediately find the desired passages, but the task is more time-consuming in the case of a book. Jowett also points out that “the hierarchy of material is not rigidly set” (164) in the case of electronic sources, but as he observes, we can arrange them according to our own personal needs (164), and we can also “separate electronic files” (Jowett 164) as we would like to. Jowett also states that the huge electronic data storage creates the possibility of huge realms of documentation (164), and that we can easily compare certain texts or use multiple ones at the same time, as “they can be displayed on-screen in any combination” (Jowett 164). Another reason to use digitalised copies, according to Jowett, is that we may not only utilise static images, but also moving images, sound recordings or even entire films for our scholarly works (165).

Another argument that Jowett provides is that books are ecologically inefficient (168), meaning that several trees have to be cut to supply typography. Consequently, as Jowett states, buying a book is more expensive than reading a free document online (168), unless if we want to use electronic databases that cannot be accessed without paying a certain amount of money.  Similarly, searching the Internet and using online databases is much easier and faster than going to the library and searching for the necessary books.

To cite Jowett, “it is not inevitable that the modes of reading associated with complete electronic projects will put an end to the reading of Shakespeare’s plays as literary and dramatic works” (168). He concludes that the purpose of digitalised texts and electronic editions is not to replace the original text format, but to create ways that supplement the activity of reading (168). However, Jowett emphasises that no single format exists that would satisfy all kinds of needs (163). Electronic databases have just as much advantages and disadvantages as books. I acknowledge that the Internet, electronic databases and digitalised texts make our lives much easier, but I also think that we should simultaneously encourage and preserve love for books, not just because of health issues, but also for that books are valuable treasures, and they should be treated as such. I do not see that books would be completely replaced by digitalised texts in the near future – or at least I hope they would not be -, for hopefully, a love for books would always remain.

Vivien Miss

Works cited

Jowett, John. Shakespeare and Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Szabó Szófia: Abuse Is a Crime, Not an Excuse

During the project work in our film group my task was to take a closer look at the representation of the characters focusing on one particular scene. We chose to analyze the wedding scene because it represents the two filmmakers’ different approaches to the original, and it is here, in this scene that the audience can see the full effects of their chosen ways in adapting the characters from the text. Although, I tried my best to find all the differences between all the characters that are present at the wedding, to be honest what stroked me the most was how Claudio and Leonato reacted to Hero’s “unfaithfulness”. I believe, that there are obvious differences between the two interpretations and the only affinity one can see between Whedon’s and Branagh’s Claudio and Leonato are that they are saying the same lines. But because they are acting in a totally different way, the characters change and so does the audience’s opinion about them.

Anytime someone asked me which version I liked better, I always had mixed feelings and did not know what to answer. However, after focusing on Claudio and having a debate with myself, I decided to prefer the black and white version of him. Why? Because in my opinion, it is never ever acceptable to abuse a woman, no matter what the circumstances are or which century we are in. I am sure, everyone remembers how in the 1993 version of Much Ado About Nothing Claudio twists Hero’s arm and then shoves her so hard she flies over a bench. He basically acts like an angry little boy who throws a tantrum after not getting his desired candy from the store. Of course he has every right to be angry, since he believes Hero was unfaithful right before their wedding day, and it is one thing to humiliate her verbally, but throwing her over a bench then destroying the whole scenery is just too much. Although, I have to mention that the whole movie is build up on intense performances; but then again, I was never a big fan of men abusing women.

 Moreover, in Branagh’s adaptation Leonato pulls Hero’s hair, hits her and people have to hold him back from attacking her, whereas in Whedon’s edition Leonato just turns away and seems like he does not even want to look at her, let alone touch her. It is not difficult to see that in the earlier version, Leonato seems to be a cruel, mad man, whereas black and white Leonato is simply broken hearted and disappointed in her daughter. What I am trying to point out, is that Whedon’s Leonato seems to be more understanding, and represents feelings that are so much closer to reality, while the 1993 version of Leonato is focused on his anger and embarrassment caused by her daughter. Unfortunately, the second reaction could be real as well, and it is not surprising in the earlier adaption, because as I said before the intensity of performance is one of the most emphasized elements of Branagh’s film. However, comparing it to the 2012 adaptation, I believe that the wedding scene and the two character’s interactions are too violent as long as abusing women is considered.

To sum up, the point of my comparison of the characters is not to decide which version is better, or who played the role better but to understand that the different styles of directing a scene can change or add to the original idea of a character. As a consequence everyone can see that while Branagh focused on the intensity of performance, Whedon introduces his audience to a rather real and emotional black and white realm. Yet, as a personal opinion I must mention that abusing a woman is not an excuse, it is a crime.

Vivien Miss: MAAN 1993 vs. 2012 In Terms of Language

With the Film Group, we compared two film adaptations of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing: Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 version and Joss Whedon’s 2012 adaptation in terms of setting, customs, characterisation, camera movements and language changes in order to reveal whether the choice of medium constructs a different reading of the original text or not. As I was comparing the two films with paying close attention to language and language changes, I realised that there are certain changes within the script of both adaptations, some of which are only minor and stylistic changes without considerably altering the reading of the original text, but we can also find more decided differences that ultimately alter the meaning, the emotional appeal or the emphasis of the original text.

I would like to point out those changes that are more outstanding and eye-catching compared to the original Shakespearean text. These are not simply stylistic or syntactic changes, but ones that modify the emphasis on certain important elements, or just not able to properly depict the original depth of emotions. One instance can be seen in Leonato’s passage, “I know not. If they speak but truth of her, /These hands shall tear her; if they wrong her honour, /The proudest of them shall well hear of it” (Shakespeare 95) has been changed in both films that also changed the meaning of the original text as well. In the 2012 version Leonato says: “these hands shall tear thee”, which is a justified and reasonable modification with view to the fact that on the screen he has his hands on his daughter and he is addressing her. However, in the 1993 adaptation the first part of Leonato’s speech has been completely omitted, leaving only the following lines: “if they wrong her honour, /The proudest of them shall well hear of it.” It suggests that he is no longer doubting that Hero is innocent, while Shakespeare’s text contains a feeling of doubt on Leonato’s part.

Similarly, Claudio’s outburst, “O, what men dare do! What men may do! What men daily do, not knowing what they do” (Shakespeare 89) is completely omitted from the 1993 adaptation. If the director had kept this speech like Whedon in his own film, it would have intensified the feelings of Claudio and his rage. The same depth of emotions is missing from the 1993 version, for it only contains one part of Hero’s speech: “They know that do accuse me; I know none” (Shakespeare 95), while the 2012 adaptation kept the whole passage of Hero as it is written in the original text, thus expressing that she feels completely helpless and betrayed.

A last major change to observe – maybe the most serious to point out – is the moment when Hero collapses, for she swoons at a completely different moment in Branagh’s movie. According to the original text, Hero swoons after Claudio says goodbye to her: “But fare thee well, most foul, most fair” (Shakespeare 92)! This has been preserved in the 2012 version. Despite the fact that he had been hurt and he thought that Hero cheated on him, he still says goodbye and shows affection to her. However, according to the 1993 adaptation, Hero collapses as a consequence of Don Pedro’s words, when he accuses her of cheating and “vile encounters they have had / A thousand times in secret” (92). Although Claudio looks back and wants to see if she is alright, this scene lacks the considerable emotional appeal by the change in the order and the sequence of events, as it is not Claudio’s speech that causes the swoon of Hero, but Don Pedro’s, and he does not even say goodbye to her as it is written in Shakespeare’s play.

Considering a film, it is very hard to decide what to include and what to omit, although there are certain passages and lines that must not be omitted or changed. There are certain key moments and events that had been altered in both versions. Some changes are only minor ones that do not change the meaning of the original text ultimately, but both versions contain major changes that may modify the meaning of the text, by lacking the depiction of the exact same emotional appeal and depth on the screen that is included in the written text of Much Ado About Nothing.

Works cited

Much Ado About Nothing. Dir. Joss Whedon. Lionsgate, 2012. DVD.

Much Ado About Nothing. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. BBC Films, 1993. DVD.

Shakespeare, Williams. Much Ado About Nothing. Ed. R. A. Foakes. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1968. Print.

Vivien Miss

Szolnoki Andrea: Much Ado About Beatrice

My task in the Theatre Group was to write about Madách Theatre’s 1981 version of Much Ado About Nothing, directed by Tamás Szirtes. I got the aspects of analysing Almási Éva’s Beatrice’s costuming and this interpretation’s eavesdropping scenes. After watching the film adaptations of Much Ado About Nothing, I must admit that I did not like the 1981 theatre adaptation of the play. However, carrying out my task and analysing Beatrice helped me understand her and the play better which changed my mind about it.

As a start, I firstly started with observing Beatrice’s appearance that helped me understand her modern character. Watching the recording of the performance carefully, it made me notice the uniqueness of the woman. I immediately noticed that she stands out of the crowd by her style of dressing as well that reflects on her personality. I enlisted her clothing: her dress, hairdo and accessories. When I drew similarity between her and the other female characters, her modern dressing became evident. For example, her dress looks nothing like a female dress of the Renaissance era. She is indeed elegant but her dressing resembles a more modern concept of female dressing. For example, she wears collars, while the Renaissance dresses were open at the neck but moderate enough to cover the cleavage. Also, her glasses are of the 19^th-20^th century. By this, the director might be emphasising her outstanding character that she does not merge into the society.

Secondly, Beatrice’s masculinity is emphasised. For example, the woman wears collars. They have been popular since the 1300s but not with women. Also, Beatrice wears her hair tied up or hidden under her hat. Actually, female hair can be viewed as a symbol of femininity, which is why it is interesting to see how she treats her hair. So this implies that Beatrice is not simply outstanding but also has masculine traits.

What is more, Beatrice can be viewed as a kind of feminist. Due to her outstanding character and masculine traits the question of feminism could emerge. After all, not only does she raise her voice to express her thoughts but she is also brave and witty enough to stand up against men. Also, her dressing and hairstyle might imply this in this interpretation.

The second aspect I had to analyse was Beatrice’s eavesdropping scene that showed me her gentle and funny side. I found this part absolutely entertaining because of her clumsy moves: she falls all around the stage, crawls on the ground. All these are visible and big gestures that make the audience laugh. Her other side of gentleness and softness also come to the surface as a reaction to the rumours of Benedick being in love with her. All the negative traits she is charged with by Hero and Ursula might be true, but Beatrice’s view on her relationship with Benedick takes a turn. Due to this rumour that she believes, the woman starts becoming more conscious of her behaviour and regards everything with a different eye.

In conclusion, Madách Theatre’s 1981 version of Much Ado About Nothing managed to change my mind about the play and Beatrice. Thanks to the analysis of Beatrice’s costuming and her eavesdropping scene made me realise the perfection of entertainment the director succeeded to generate. This performance also illustrates well that Beatrice is a sensitive and attractive young woman under the surface of wit and sarcasm; and this great contrast in her personality is amazingly portrayed.

The photos are taken from Nava’s web page and from Lilla Carson’s website:

http://nava.hu/id/1839372/

http://misogaeva.weebly.com/shakespeare-sziacutendarabok/archives/02-2015