Film and Shakespeare essays

Film and Shakespeare essays Film and Shakespeare Much Ado About Nothing There is more to Shakespeare comedy than meets the eye. Discuss how well you think the comedy Much Ado about Nothing translates from text to screen. Over the years Shakespeare has ventured many different stories in order to perform them in view of a live audience. One of his many wonderful plays which appeared to be successful would be Much ado about nothing, a romantic comedy which was written about 1598/99. In the majority of Shakespeares comedys, he would take a serious issue and simply laugh at it. It would appear to be a simple misunderstanding rather than an issue to the audience, therefore they would be content in their viewing. The pattern of Shakespeare comedys appeared to be of one action triggering a sequence of events and almost misleading the story in another direction. It was a genre, which needed full interpretation of its meaning and therefore meanings were repeated through the play in order to keep the audience in understanding. Characters within the plays were often presented in a way in which society would accept, however gradually throughout the play it was Shakespeares routine to let theyre masks slip just to catch a glimpse of what lay ahead. The standard routine for Shakespeare would always be a performance on stage during daytime hours, this regime is continued throughout the world to this day (extending there viewing until night). Theatres perform many live productions capturing the ambience of a performance which only people present at that time can see and will never again be repeated. Therefore an obvious task lay ahead for Kenneth Branagh when he decided to take the text Much ado about nothing and take it to the screen. Kenneth Branaghs film released in 1993, exploiting any previous visual possibilities. The play was set in Messina with panoramic ...

Greed and Taxation Led to the Fall of Rome

Greed and Taxation Led to the Fall of Rome Whether you prefer to say Rome fell (in 410 when Rome was sacked, or in 476 when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus), or simply morphed into the Byzantine Empire and medieval feudalism, economic policies of the emperors had a heavy impact on the lives of the citizens of Rome. Primary Source Bias Although they say history is written by the victors, sometimes its just written by the elites. This is the case with Tacitus (ca. 56 to 120) and Suetonius (ca.71 to 135), our primary literary sources on the first dozen emperors. Historian Cassius Dio, a contemporary of Emperor Commodus (Emperor from 180 to 192), was also from a senatorial family (which, then as now, meant elite). Commodus was one of the emperors who, although despised by the senatorial classes, was loved by the military and lower classes. The reason is mainly financial. Commodus taxed the senators and was generous with the others. Likewise, Nero (Emperor from 54 to 68) was popular with the lower classes, who held him in the kind of reverence reserved in modern times for Elvis Presley- complete with Nero sightings after his suicide.   Inflation Nero and other emperors debased the currency in order to supply a demand for more coins. Debasing currency means that instead of a coin having its own intrinsic value, it was now the only representative of the silver or gold it had once contained. In 14 (the year of Emperor Augustus death), the supply of Roman gold and silver amounted to $1,700,000,000. By 800, this had dwindled to $165,000. Part of the problem was that the government would not permit the melting down of gold and silver for individuals. By the time of Claudius II Gothicus (Emperor from 268 to 270), the amount of silver in a supposedly solid silver denarius was only .02 percent. This was or led to severe inflation, depending on how you define inflation. Especially luxurious emperors like Commodus, who marked the end of the period of the five good emperors, depleted the imperial coffers. By the time of his assassination, the Empire had almost no money left. The 5 Good Emperors Leading to up Commodus 96 to 98: Nerva  98 to 117: Trajan  117 to 138: Hadrian  Ã‚  138 to 161: Antoninus Pius  161 to 180: Marcus Aurelius177/180 to 192: ​Commodus Land The Roman Empire acquired money by taxation or by finding new sources of wealth, like land. However, it had reached its furthest limits by the time of the second good emperor, Trajan, during the period of the high empire (96 to 180), so land acquisition was no longer an option. As Rome lost territory, it also lost its revenue base. Romes wealth was originally in the land, but this gave way to wealth through taxation. During the expansion of Rome around the Mediterranean, tax-farming went hand-in-hand with provincial government since the provinces were taxed even when Romans proper were not. Tax farmers would bid for the chance to tax the province and would pay in advance. If they failed, they lost, with no recourse to Rome, but they generally made a profit at the hand of the peasants. The diminishing importance of tax-farming at the end of the Principate was a sign of moral progress, but also meant the government couldnt tap private corporations in the event of an emergency. The means of acquiring crucial monetary funds included debasing the silver currency (seen as preferable to increasing the rate of taxation, and common), spending reserves (depleting the imperial coffers), increasing taxes (which was not done during the period of the high empire), and confiscating the estates of the wealthy elite. Taxation could be in kind, rather than coinage, which required local bureaucracies to make efficient use of perishables, and might be expected to produce reduced revenue for the seat of the Roman Empire. Emperors deliberately overtaxed the senatorial (or ruling) class in order to render it powerless. To do this, the emperors needed a powerful set of enforcers- the imperial guard. Once the wealthy and powerful were no longer either rich or powerful, the poor had to pay the bills of the state. These bills included the payment of the imperial guard and the military troops at the empires borders. Feudalism Since the military and the imperial guard were absolutely essential, taxpayers had to be compelled to produce their pay. Workers had to be tied to their land. To escape the burden of tax, some small landowners sold themselves into slavery, since slaves didnt have to pay tax and freedom from taxes was more desirable than personal liberty. In the early days of the Roman Republic, debt-bondage (nexum) was acceptable. Nexum, Cornell argues, was better than being sold into foreign slavery or death. It is possible that centuries later, during the Empire, the same sentiments prevailed. Since the Empire wasnt making money from the slaves, Emperor Valens (ca. 368) made it illegal to sell oneself into slavery. Small landowners becoming feudal serfs is one of the several economic conditions  responsible for the fall of Rome. Resources and Further Reading Barnish, S. J. B. â€Å"A Note on the ‘Collatio Glebalis.†Ã‚  Historia: Zeitschrift Fà ¼r Alte Geschichte, vol. 38, no. 2, 1989, pp. 254-256.  JSTOR.Bartlett, Bruce. â€Å"How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome.† Cato Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, 1994, pp. 287-303.Cornell, Tim J. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome From the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 B.C.). Routledge, 1995.Hammond, Mason. â€Å"Economic Stagnation in the Early Roman Empire.† The Journal of Economic History, vol. 6, no. S1, 1946, pp. 63-90.Heather, Peter. Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University, 2014.Hopkins, Keith. â€Å"Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.-A.D. 400).† Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 70, Nov. 1980, pp. 101-125.Mirković Miroslava. The Later Roman Colonate and Freedom. American Philosophical Society, 1997.West, Louis C. â€Å"The Economic Collapse of the Roman Empire.†Ã‚  The Classi cal Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, 1932, pp. 96-106.  JSTOR.Wickham, Chris. â€Å"The Other Transition: From the Ancient World to Feudalism.† Past Present, vol. 103, no. 1, 1 May 1984, pp. 3-36. Woolf, Greg. â€Å"Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy.† World Archaeology, vol. 23, no. 3, 1992, pp. 283-293.

The War on Terror Has Led To Greater Violence Essay

The War on Terror Has Led To Greater Violence - Essay Example However, all the countries the US has strategic control over, do not seem to be able to overcome insurgents and troublemakers. The underlying argument that attributes the causality of events is that the surge in violence caused by insurgents and ‘terrorists’ is a consequence of the continued interruption of the US, NATO and its allies in the affairs of foreign countries. The argument is further strengthened by the fact that the loss of civilians as a result of misdirected and poor strategic and military decisions on the part of the US and NATO has been colossal. Think of it this way, how would the American public react if a rival state such as China, invaded Texas. It then went on to establish military bases, strategic air bases, and firm control over the region. Furthermore, it carried out searches in houses of all residents on the premise of suspected terrorist activity. The reaction would be that of anger, contempt and frustration and would lead to an uprising against the foreign occupants. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is strikingly similar to the one presented above, except that it is happening for real with the occupation of the US and NATO forces. ... That proposition however, could turn out to be extremely challenging for the developed world amid one of the worst economic crises of history. The rationalization that leads to the establishment of insurgent groups and ‘terrorist’ organizations stems from the basic argument of right of freedom and independence. These organizations are often termed as freedom fighters or warriors by their supporters and the zeal and purpose with which they fight goes far beyond economic incentives. Furthermore the strongest insurgent groups that are participants on the other side of the War on terror, including Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, are driven by the extra zeal of religious extremism, whereby they seek to establish the principles of their version of Islam and do not tolerate anyone who does not follow their interpretations of the religious scriptures of Islam (Riedel). Their perception of death and its consequences is starkly different from a common American citizen. Through war they seek to achieve martyrdom, and through martyrdom, heaven. Their faith in their religion is far stronger than their love for this life and their purpose of existence hinges on a better afterlife (Crews and Tarzi). To further their cause they often misinterpret or quote religious scriptures out of contexts, bringing in vulnerable youngsters to join their struggle and broadening their horizon of influence and power. Hence, it is important to realize that bringing such groups down is not a statistical battle in terms of number of men; rather it is a war against a specific faith that is strong. The invasion and occupation of these nations gives this faith extra life and