Film Comparison - A Dolls House essays

Film Comparison - A Doll's House essays In class, we were shown two film versions of Ibsen's play, "A Doll's House." The first, starring Anthony Hopkins, was a more strict adaptation of the play. The second, featuring Jane Fonda, presented a broader vision of the play by using additional scenes and dialogue to expand the viewer's understanding of the characters and their dilemmas. For simplicity's sake, this essay shall refer to the films as "strict" or "broad" respectively, in order to identify them. First, the original play's impressions are quite different from the film versions in the reading. A reader is left only to the benefit of her own imagination while reading a play. It seems actually more like listening to an old fashioned radio show because it is mostly dialogue. But there aren't even tones of voice with which we interpret so much conversation. There are no rehearsed or measured pauses which create a very frenetic impression of many of the characters – especially Nora. Nora comes across as a top spinni ng out of control. Her husband reads as disinterested, his affections just that, affected. Christine is not anchored into the plot as well as she is in film. Strangely, Grogstad seems even more threatening on paper than on film. My conclusion, as one not accustomed to plays or theatre is that a script is the original physical reality of a play but that it takes the winds of theatrical talent to breathe life into it. The characters seem one-dimensional. The author may have his intentions but the soul of each performance and the spirit in which it speaks its truths to the audience varies. That variation depends on exactly what the director wants the audience to perceive. The strict film adaptation confined itself largely to a set approximating a stage set. It began literally at the beginning without embellishing. Without an introduction, the plot is hard to grasp and it is much easier to criticize the characters for surface impressions than to empathize or und...

Mexico and United States Foreign Policy Relations

Mexico and United States Foreign Policy Relations Mexico was originally the site of various Amerindian civilizations such as the Mayas and the Aztecs. The country was later invaded by Spain in 1519 which led to a prolonged colonial period that would last until the 19th century when the country finally gained its independence at the end of the war of independence. Mexican-American War The conflict was sparked when the U.S. annexed Texas and the Mexican government refused to recognize the secession of Texas which was the precursor to the annexation. The war, which began in 1846 and lasted for 2 years, was settled via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which led to Mexico giving up even more of its land to the US, including California. Mexico further transferred some of its territories (southern Arizona and New Mexico) to the U.S. via the Gadsden Purchase in 1854. 1910 Revolution Lasting for 7 years, the 1910 revolution ended the rule of the dictator president Porfirio Diaz. The war was sparked when the U.S.-supported Diaz was proclaimed the winner of the 1910 elections despite mass popular support for his rival in the election Francisco Madero. After the war, the various groups that made up the revolutionary forces splintered as they lost the unifying goal of unseating Diaz - leading to a civil war. The U.S. intervened in the conflict including the involvement of the U.S. ambassador in the plotting of the 1913 coup dà ©tat which overthrew Madero. Immigration A major issue of contention between both countries is that of immigration from Mexico to the U.S. The September 11th attacks increased the fear of terrorists crossing over from Mexico leading to a tightening of immigration restrictions including a U.S. Senate bill, heavily criticized in Mexico, supporting the construction of a fence along the Mexican-American border. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) NAFTA led to the elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers between Mexico and the U.S. and serves as a multilateral platform for cooperation between both countries. The agreement increased trade volume and cooperation in both countries. NAFTA has come under attack from Mexican and American farmers and the political left claiming that it hurts the interest of local small farmers in both the U.S. and Mexico. Balance In Latin American politics, Mexico has acted as a counterweight to the policies of the new populist left characterized by Venezuela and Bolivia. This led to charges from some in Latin America that Mexico is blindly following U.S. commands. The biggest disagreements between the left and current Mexican leadership is whether to enlarge American-led trade regimes, which has been Mexicos traditional approach, versus a more regional approach favoring Latin American cooperation and empowerment.