Difficult Hate Terms Defined Conclusively Criminology Essay

Difficult Hate Terms Defined Conclusively Criminology Essay Why is Hate Crime Such a Difficult Term to Define Conclusively? Hate crime is a relatively new concept which originated during the 1980s in the US after a series of incidents directed towards Jews, Asians and Blacks (Green, McFalls and Smith, 2001). The term was brought to Europe and the UK in the 1990s, and hate crime became a prominent issue after the 1999 McPherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a black teenager in London (Bowling and Phillips, 2003). It is a concept which is often used by politicians, the media, the Criminal Justice System and the public; although they often do not fully understand what the term means (Hall, 2005). This essay will explore the term hate crime and try to understand why there is no definitive definition of it, and the reasons for the many conflicting definitions. The first section will explore academic definitions and how they have developed, looking at the flaws of the early definitions and moving on to the most used and most comprehen sive definitions of recent times. After this the essay will explore the official definitions used by a variety of government bodies including the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Criminal Justice Systems definitions. This essay will then compare how recordings of hate crime differ around the world, and how different definitions of hate crime can lead to dramatically different levels in the number of hate crimes recorded (Giannasi, 2011). The next section will explore in more depth some of the topics covered already, in particularly how different definitions and different countries and states include different factors of hate crimes, such as sexual orientation and gender, as well as exploring the level of prejudice that is required for a crime to become a hate crime. The penultimate section explores the new and borderline hate crimes and whether these groups should be protected under hate crime laws, comparing them to Perrys definition of a hate crime. Finally this essay will explore incitement of hatred laws, and how these laws are seen as controversial and are argued to prevent freedom of speech (Gerstenfeld, 2011), as well as exploring the controversial nature of hate crime, looking at how hate crime laws are seen by some as punishing thought instead of actions. In order to understand why hate crime is such a difficult term to define we first need to look at the different definitions that have been suggested, so that we can see how they differ. There have been many different definitions suggested by a variety of academics and policy makers, each trying to define what a hate crime entails (Jacobs and Potter, 1997). The most basic definition of a hate crime is a crime motivated by hate, but this is contested by most, if not all, academics due to its simplicity and the fact that not all hate crimes have hate as a contributing factor (Hall, 2005), as we shall see later the term prejudice is often preferred. Many early definitions suggested by academics, as well as more recent ones, often fail to fully describe what a hate crime is, leaving many gaps in there definition. Petrosinos (2003) definition of a hate crime only refers to victimisation of ethnic minority groups, whilst Wolfe and Copelands (1994, as cited in Jenness and Broad, 2009) defini tion states that there needs to be violence towards the victim, although most definitions argue that it does not just have to be violence (Green et al, 2001). The definition that is often referred to as the best is Perrys 2001 definition (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009; Hall, 2005); Hate crime involves acts of violence and intimidation, usually directed towards already stigmatised and marginalised groups. As such, it is a mechanism of power and oppression, intended to reaffirm the precarious hierarchies that characterise a given social order. It attempts to re-create simultaneously the threatened (real or imagined) hegemony of the perpetrators group and the appropriate subordinate identity of the victims group. (Perry, 2001: 10). Her definition begins by identifying that acts of intimidation and violence can amount to a hate crime, but does not specify that it is violence towards a person and therefore it can include violence towards a persons property, which is also a form of intimidation. By including all acts of violence and intimidation Perry is including the low-level forms of hate crime, such as simple assault, harassment, threats, and vandalism (Bell, 2004: 185), as these are the most common hate crimes. Her definition follows Sheffields 1995 definition, which identifies the significance of reaffirming hierarchies and the social order within society (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). Perrys definition also identifies that the victims group are already stigmatised in society and are historically marginalised groups, such as race, religion and gender (Craig, 2002). This does cause problems when we consider the new borderline groups, such as Goths, as these groups do not fit this definition, as they have no t been historically marginalised, but crimes against these groups are still seen as hate crimes; this issue will be discussed later in the essay. Her definition then states that the perpetrator is not just attacking the victim but the whole of the victims group. This is echoed by the work of Hall (2005) as they both describe a hate crime as a type of message crime, which is directed towards the minority group to show that they are the minority and are lower in society than the perpetrator, not just an attack on the individual. In fact the individual victims of serious violent hate crimes is often not know to the victim and are attacked just because of their perceived identity (Aurdley, 2005). Official definitions of hate crime can also vary dramatically between different countries and different states, as well as between different agencies within the same country (Jacobs and Potter, 1997). An example of this is the differences in the definitions used by the police and the courts, which often results in a different number of recorded hate crimes when compared to the number of convictions for hate crimes (Iganski, 2002). The guidelines used by the police to define a hate crime are that of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Their most recent set of guidelines were set out in their hate crime manual, Hate Crime: Delivering a Quality Service Good Practice and Tactical Guidance (2005), which expanded on their previous 2000 definition, and split a hate crime in two sections, as hate incidents and hate crimes. They define a hate incident as any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as bei ng motivated by prejudice or hate (ACPO, 2005: 9), and a hate crime as any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate (ACPO, 2005: 9). As mentioned this definition defines both a hate crime and a hate incident, and is different to the single hate crime definition from their 2000 hate crime manual, as this did not include hate incidents (Gerstenfeld, 2011). This is the first problem when defining hate crime, as it is not just crimes that are included but incidents of hate as well, meaning that there is a high number of hate crimes recorded by the Police when compared to different agencies. Another point is that it is not just police officers who can classify a crime as a hate crime but the victim and any other person as well. As mentioned earlier the term prejudice is often preferred to the term hate, as hate is a strong word and often it is prejudice rather than hate that is a factor (Hall , 2005). The problem with the term prejudice in this definition is that it does not define what level of prejudice is required or the types of prejudices which are included, as prejudice against other football teams is still prejudice, but are not classed as hate crimes. These problems with ACPOs definition are not exclusive problems, as most definitions have similar problems, and they will be discussed in greater detail later. What this definition has done though is it has made it easier for crimes to be defined as hate crimes by the victim, as the victim often has a better perception of the crime than the police officer who records it. Hate crime laws in England and Wales give certain groups and identities specific laws to protect them, and to enhance the penalties given to offenders, such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which give penalty enhancements for racial and religiously motivated crime respectively (Goodey, 2005). The other legislation for penalty enhancement is the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which offers penalty enhancement for sexual orientation or disablist crimes. Other legislation for hate crimes is incitement of hatred laws, which make it a criminal offence to incite hatred of certain groups, either written or verbally. The Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice Act 2008 all have provisions for incitement of hatred, but they only cover certain groups, such as race, religion and sexual orientation and not other groups such as the disabled and new youth subcultures (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). T he burden of proof for all of these crimes lies with the prosecution and often the burden of proof, especially for incitement of hatred, is subjective, having to demonstrate that the offender meant to cause harm by what they said. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, which set the penalty enhancement laws for disablist and religious hate crimes, states that for a penalty enhancement the defence needs to prove that at the time of committing the offence or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility (Criminal Justice Act 2003: section 146). This means that for an offence to be a hate crime the perpetrator has to show hostility towards the victim at the time of the attack, and therefore the perpetrators affiliation with far right groups or prior hatred cannot be a factor when defining a crime as a hate crime (Hall, 2005). The number of hate crimes recorded in different countries around the world and in different states within America differ dramatically, because of the different measures used to define what a hate crime is, as hate crime is a socially constructed concept (Perry, 2001). Also the different methods used to record hate crimes give different figures of recorded hate crime, because as mentioned previously anybody can class a crime as a hate crime in England when reporting it, and in other countries, such as America, it is just the police who can record it as a hate crime (Bowling and Phillips, 2003). The UK recorded 52,102 hate crimes in 2009, which is 44,302 more than USA recorded in 2008 (Giannasi, 2011), which has a population which is five times the size of the UKs. This does not mean that the UK has a greater hate crime problem than the USA, but that the recording of it is different, as they define a hate crime differently. In Greece there were two recorded hate crimes in 2008 and 142 in Italy (Giannasi, 2011). All of this shows that the recording of hate crime differs dramatically around the world, because of the different requirements of a hate crime, and the different definitions and understandings of it. As mentioned previously the word prejudice is used more frequently then the term hate, because hate is not always present, as the crimes are often more about reaffirming hierarchies and the social order than because of hatred towards an specific identity (Hall, 2005). Most definitions state that the offence needs to be motivated by prejudice towards the victim and there group identity. The problem with this is they do not state how much prejudice needs to be present to make it a hate crime. In ACPOs definition of a hate crime it states that a hate crime should be motivated by prejudice or hate (ACPO, 2005: 9), but this leaves questions about how much it needs to be motivated by prejudice or hate. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that this prejudice needs to be present at the time of the offence, shortly before or shortly after (Hall, 2005). The level of prejudice is hard to define as hate crime is a socially constructed concept and therefore it is often down an individual to dete rmine if the prejudice was sufficient (Jacobs and Potter, 1998). Because of the difficulties in defining the amount of prejudice required it is difficult to define a hate crime, as there is differences in interpretations of the levels of prejudice required because it is an individual decision, and therefore there is no specific measure of when a crime becomes a crime of prejudice towards the victims identity and therefore a hate crime, or what is acceptable or unacceptable prejudice (Hall, 2005). As we have seen the definitions of hate crime vary geographically between different countries and different states (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). Hate crime has been an issue for discussion in the USA for much longer than in the UK, but they do not have a universal definition for a hate crime. One of the most notable conflicts in definitions between different states in the USA is the different victim groups that hate crime laws cover. There are some federal hate crime laws which are enforced over all states and jurisdictions in America, such as laws to give enhanced penalties for crimes against certain groups, such race and religious crimes (Green et al, 2001). But it is mainly down to individual states to define what a hate crime is and as a result the groups covered by these laws vary between different states, and they also vary between different countries. Some states classify gender and sexual orientation as hate crime victims, while other states do not (Gerstenfeld, 2011). Thi s is a problem when it comes to conclusively defining hate crime, as there is no consensus on who can be victims of a hate crime. In England and Wales there are five main strands of hate crime as set out by ACPO (2009), these are race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender and disability. All of these groups fit with Perrys definition of who hate crime victims are, as they are all historically marginalised minority groups. Although these are the main groups there are many other minority groups which can be victims of hate crimes. One group which has caused many discussions as to whether or not they should be classified as a hate crime victims are victims of domestic violence (Gerstenfeld, 2011). One of the arguments for domestic violence being a hate crime is that it matches the definition suggested Perry (2001) as women are a historically marginalised minority group, and domestic violence is to reinforce the hierarchies of society, with men being dominant (Batsleer, Burman, Chantler, Pantling, McIntosh, Smailes and Warner, 2002). The opposing argument is that it should not be a hate crime because women are not being attacked because of their group identity; instead they are being targeted because they are close to the perpetrator and an easy target for them, and therefore it is not a message crime to the wider female population (Dutton, 2006). ACPO (2008) does not identify age as one of its main strands, but does recognise it as a form of hate crime (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). Although the ACPO (2009) and the Home Office (2008) identify ageism as a form of hate crime only about one third of police forces record it as such (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). Ageism is similar to disablist hate crime in that it is often committed by a person of trust (Cuddy and Fiske, 2004) and behind closed doors. There are some arguments that ageism should not be classified as a hate crime because often the victim is not attacked because of their age, or to reinforce the social order of society but instead it is because they are an easy target, as a result of their age (Wolhunter, Olley and Denham, 2009). Another argument against classifying ageism as a hate crime is that the elderly are a heterogeneous group and include people from a variety of backgrounds (Lister and Wall, 2006). The arguments for ageism being classified as a hate crim e is that older people often develop disabilities and therefore crimes towards a victim because of their age is often seen as disablist hate crimes, although they differ from people who are born with a disability (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). The main differences between those who are victims of a hate crime because of their age when compared to other disabilities is that everyone is likely to become old and therefore everybody has a chance of becoming potential victims of ageism. Goths, Punks and other new youth subcultures are also borderline hate crime victims (Garland, 2010). Hate crimes against these groups was highlighted by the murder of Sophie Lancaster in 2007. She was murdered because of her Gothic identity and at court the judge commented that this was a hate crime and imposed an enhanced punishment because so (BBC News, 2008). The reason for crimes like this being a classed as a hate crime is that the victims are often targeted because of their identity and their appearance (Gifford, 2010), and often it is a message crime towards all members of the subculture, which is meant to reinforce the hierarchies of the majority (Garland, 2010). These crimes against new youth subcultures do not fit the definition suggested by Perry of a hate crime. This is because they are not an historically marginalised minority, as they are a relatively new group, but the harm and impacts these crimes have on the wider community is the same as other forms of hate crime (G arland, 2010). There are many other borderline expressions of hate that do not fit the existing definitions of a hate crime, but are still crimes of hate or prejudice. Another example is sectarianism hate crimes, which are crimes committed by members of the Protestants, Unionist or Loyalist communities towards members of the Catholic, Nationalist or Republican communities and vice versa (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). These are crimes of prejudice against the opposite community because of their identity, but unlike other crimes they do not have to be committed by the majority towards the minority, and instead can be committed by either side (Jarman, 2005). There is much debate as to whether sectarianism crimes should be classified as hate crimes or not, as they do not conform to the general definitions of what a hate crime is. All of these borderline crimes further show how difficult it is to define a hate crime, as crimes that do not fit the conventional definitions are often seen as a hate crime. As previously mentioned there are hate crime laws for incitement of hatred, as well as penalty enhancement laws. Incitement of hatred is a greater issue in the UK than it is in the US, as the first amendment of the US constitution states that there cannot be laws which prevent their freedom of speech (Levin, 1999). The UK has several laws which govern incitement of hatred, making speeches and articles which contain threatening, abusive or hatred behaviour towards a minority group illegal. These laws have been very controversial in the UK, as they restrict freedom of speech, which is a human right (Gerstenfeld, 2011). The 2004 Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill aimed to make incitement of religious hatred illegal, as had already been done for incitement of racial hatred by the Public Order Act 1986. But there was much opposition towards this new bill, much of which came for comedians and was led by Rowan Atkinson, claiming that the freedom to criticise ideas is one of the fundame ntal freedoms of society (Atkinson, 2004 as cited in BBC News, 2004). There have also been discussions and arguments over what hate crime laws are punishing, as laws such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal Justice Act 2003 give an increased punishment for perpetrators of hate crime. The reason for this is that hate crimes cause more harm to the victim and their wider community than ordinary crimes, as they are being targeted because of who they are, rather than something they have done, and therefore they feel more at risk of repeat victimisation (Craig, 2002). This has led to arguments over whether punishing a hate crime is just in fact punishing peoples thoughts rather than their actions (Iganski, 2002). A crime usually has two factors that determine its severity and the reasons for it; these being the intent and the motive (Hall, 2005). The intent of the perpetrator is how much hurt or damage they meant to cause to the victim and the motive is why they did it. Hate crime focuses on the motive and unlike punishment for most offences, whe re the amount of damage or hurt determines the perpetrators punishment, it is also the reasons for their actions which determine their punishment (Hall, 2005). Therefore many see it is punishing peoples thoughts and the way they think rather than their actions (Jacobs and Potter, 1997). This essay has aimed to explore why the term hate crime is so difficult to define conclusively. It has done this by exploring the academics definitions of what a hate crime is and the problems with some of the many definitions suggested by a variety of academics. It identified Perrys definition as the most definitive, although there are flaws with her definition, as with all definitions (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). The reason for identifying this definition is that it is the most often used definition by other academics, as it is the most comprehensive (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009; Hall, 2005). The essay then went on to explore the official definitions used in the UK, such as those used by ACPO and the Criminal Justice System. It explored how these definitions contradict each other as the police record hate incidents, which are not crimes and therefore the courts cannot punish offenders for them. The levels of recorded hate crimes around the world vary dramatically with the UK recording nearly seven times the number of hate crimes compared to the USA (Giannasi, 2011); despite the USA having a population that is five times that of the UK. This shows how definitions of hate crime vary dramatically around the world, especially as Greece only recorded two hate crimes in 2008 (Giannasi, 2011). The next section expanded on some of the issues mention previously when discussing the different definitions of hate crime. It explored how different definitions, countries and states have different victim groups and how some include gender and sexual orientation, while others do not. The essay then went on to discuss different victim groups who are classified as borderline hate crime groups. This includes ageism, Goths and other new youth subcultures as well as sectarianism; although these groups do not fit Perrys definition of what a hate crime is, they are recognised as a hate crime by many people, due to the effects that crimes on these groups can have. The final sec tion of this essay explored incitement of hated, and how laws to prevent this have caused much debate over the protection of human rights to comment and criticise ideas (BBC News, 2004). This section discussed how hate crime laws can be seen as being a way of punishing peoples thoughts, rather than their actions as these laws can increase sentences for perpetrators based on the reasons for their actions rather than the actions themselves. Overall this essay has identified the reasons why hate crime is so difficult to define conclusively, due to the different victims, crimes and levels of prejudice, and how this has led to difficulties in creating definitions and comparing hate crime geographically.

Cape Literature Ia “Much Ado About Nothing” by William Shakespeare Essay

The 1993 film adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing, by Kenneth Branagh, differs in many aspects from the original script written by Shakespeare. Branagh employs brilliant cinematography, manipulating lighting, camera angles to produce a carefree version to the original text. The soundtrack is dazzling and his interpretation breathes life and vitality into this old world play. According to critic Vincent Canby, â€Å"He has taken a Shakespearean romantic comedy, the sort of thing that usually turns to mush on the screen and made a movie that is triumphantly romantic, comic and, most surprising of all, emotionally alive† (May 7th, 1993). Lighting, music and technology enhance the various moods that perpetuate the film and Branagh is thus able to overcome language barriers, which enables the performance to be more understandable for a modern audience. The movie is assumed to be more light-hearted and free flowing than the original text. According to critic Todd McCarthy â€Å"The film is continuously enjoyable from its action-filled opening to the dazzling final shot. † Much Ado about Nothing is a tale of friendship, betrayal and the power of love to conquer all obstacles. It is one of Shakespeare’s comedies and though it has a dark side, staying true to being a comedy, serious issues are treated light heartedly. Branagh moves the setting from Messina to the verdant hills of Tuscany. His choice of setting therefore determines his overall mood for the film. The production begins with the recitation of Balthazar’s song by Beatrice (Emma Thompson). When the scene comes to light the audience is exposed to a striking panoramic shot of the rich rural setting. The shot then pans down to a society picnicking under the Tuscan sun. The society seems relaxed and warm as they loll on the grass listening to Beatrice (Emma Thompson), who is perched in a tree, reciting the song. The pace quickly changes from lethargy to one of excitement, as a messenger brings news of the forthcoming arrival of Don Pedro (Denzel Washington) and his men. Men and women scurry to the villa amid screams and laughter to get ready for the prince. Thoughts of war are abandoned and replaced by thoughts of love. The plot then revolves around two couples, Hero (Kate Beckinsale) and Claudio (Robert Sean Leonard), and Beatrice and Benedict (Kenneth Branagh). Claudio seeks Don Pedro’s help in wooing Hero. Once successful the prince then turns his attention to older, warring couple of Beatrice and Benedick and plots to gull them into falling in love. However, Don John (Keanu Reeves), the bastard, plots to destroy harmony in the play as he tries to foil the plans of marriage between the younger couple. His victory is fleeting as his evil plans are unearthed by Dogberry and his night watch. All ends well and the production ends in dancing and merriment. From the very beginning Branagh utilizes the advantages that technology has made possible producing a zesty film that is emotionally alive. He employs many techniques to make his production a success the first being the manipulation of different camera angles. As the film begins the audience hears the recital of what was originally Balthazar’s song by Beatrice, the words to the song appearing in white against a black backdrop, to the gentle lilt of a guitar. In this opening scene the screen comes to light with a magnificent panoramic shot of the countryside scenery. This establishes a very light-hearted and airy mood, and thus sets the tone for the production as blithe and jocular. Branagh sets his film at the Villa Vignamaggio in the hills of Tuscany, the bright Tuscan sunshine adds to the nature of the film giving it a jovial feel. The scene ‘pans’ down to men and women, sitting in the grass, occasionally playing with each other’s hair, allowing time to pass in a carefree manner. This slow ‘pan shot’ then quickly changes to a rapid flicking from scene to scene as Don Pedro arrives. The mood that is then highlighted is one of excitement as the camera switches from focusing of the scurry of characters to the villa and the victorious entrance of the prince and his men. As the film progresses Branagh exploits the use of the different camera angles to provide emotional information about the characters involved in the scene which thus allows the audience to form judgments about those said characters. For instance, when Benedick first speaks, the camera angle changes to focus on Beatrice – she scowls. This close-up allows the audience intimate details of the character’s emotional state. Here it hints to a history, a painful one at that, between the two. Even in the shaming scene, Branagh is able to focus on Margaret. In the original text Margaret is completely left out. Shakespeare was not privy to the advances of technology thus he was not able to do as Branagh did, thus Margaret was left out of the original scene. However through her show of guilt Branagh is able to reassure the audience that this will not last a feat Shakespeare achieved through manipulating language and plot structure. Significantly, when the villains tell of the â€Å"betrayal† of Hero the plan is never revealed however, and the camera angle switches to show Hero in her bed alone again reaffirming to the audience the truth something Shakespeare attained through language. Also as Branagh abridges the two gulling scenes, he is able to then superimpose the end of each scene, one over the next to show both characters experiencing the same thing. The cameras focus on their faces highlighting the immense joy they are both experiencing and relaying it onto the audience. Benedict is playing in the fountain and Beatrice is swinging on a swing, love is triumphant over the squabbles and the characters are now content. Another noteworthy technique that Branagh employs is that of character placement. In the opening scene Beatrice is shown perched in a tree, unlike the other women who are sitting, this immediately signifies that she is different. Shakespearean comedies usually have heroines possessing qualities beyond their time. Shakespeare is able to establish Beatrice’s character a witty and independent through her language and interaction with other characters. Through her interaction with the messenger who yields, and her witty repartee with Benedick, Shakespeare produces a character way beyond her time. However, managing simple character placement Branagh is able to visually complement what is set by language and that is an independent, strong character. Even when the soldiers arrive from war, the riding formation is to character role and status: Don Pedro, the prince, is place in the middle to the forefront and he is flanked on both sides, to the left by the ‘villains’ Don John and his henchmen and to the right by the ‘heroes’ Claudio and the others. Also in the shaming scene all the women take Hero’s side with the exception of Benedick who stays to support his love Beatrice, while the men are on the opposite side defending their honor against the ‘unchaste’ Hero. Costuming in this film is quite simple. The characters are dressed in white cotton which evokes a sense of simplicity which matches his vision for the play and complements the setting perfectly however, it does then produce a society that is quite leisurely and not like original society which was overly concerned with outward appearances. In Shakespearean times, dress was very important especially since it shows status and that was one of the most important things even in the original script of the play. However Branagh makes simple variations which are quite as successful. For instance Don Pedro and Don John don leather pants; all soldiers wear the same uniform with the exception of color to show their roles. The villains’ pants and jacket collars are black while the heroes don blue pants and blue collared jackets. The prince is the only character seen wearing a gold chain and pendant. With these slight variations in costuming Branagh is able to achieve the same means and stays true to his vision for the play. The soundtrack to the film was brilliant, at the beginning a cadence of guitar complements the languid feeling at the picnic as the mood changes so too does the music. The soundtrack soars to add excitement and hint victory as the Prince arrives. When the scene changes and Don John takes center frame the tune is ominous, the music is threatening and thunder booms as he puts his first plot to work. The soundtrack take on a melancholic tune as Claudio believes that the Prince is wooing Hero for himself. Shakespeare knew the importance of music. It is Balthazar’s song that Branagh employs suitably as the theme song for the film as it comments on the inconsistencies of men who â€Å"are deceivers ever†. Branagh’s use of props not only adds visual insight but comedy as well. In the beginning when the men arrive from war the flag thrusted upwards symbolizes their victory. For the masked ball, the characters wore appropriate masks which related to characteristics of the characters that wore them. Leonato wore a skull which signifies his old age, Borachio had a Cyclops mask which highlights his evil, Beatrice wore a cat mask which symbolizes her cunning nature and sexual prowess, Benedict wore a fool’s mask as he is frequently the joker, Hero had a pure white mask showing her purity, and Claudio had a baby mask symbolizing his youth. Benedict is seen fidgeting with his mask as Beatrice bashes him mercilessly, which shows his deflating ego as he endures the verbal abuse. Benedict has a fold chair as his prop for his soliloquy; he fidgets with the chair to add comedy. Once again this shows that Branagh uses his ability to have props to his advantage to make the movie more appealing to a modern audience. Branagh chose Denzel Washington to portray Don Pedro despite the fact that all Shakespeare’s actors were white. It was a smart thing to do however, because he is instantly recognized, being the Prince, and this blatantly shows the infidelity due to the stark contrast between him and Don John who is played by Keanu Reeves. The actors for Benedick and Beatrice are Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson who were married in real life and their natural chemistry comes out while portraying these characters. Shakespeare uses language to emphasize incompetence. Critics say that Dogberry’s language is lost in the squabble of Michael Keaton’s overacting. While Shakespeare depends on language Keaton is more dependent on his movements and antics to be comedic. According to critics from ‘Cinema For Crazy’ â€Å"Some of the characters are a bit annoying, like the constable played by Michael Keaton, and some of the scenes are overly dramatic, but it is Shakespeare after all and when it comes to playing with words, there’s no one better. Branagh and Thompson are wonderful together, Leonard and Beckinsale embody everything young lovers should be, Washington is powerfully sexy as the lonely leader and even Reeves delivers as the sullen villain. † Branagh makes full use of the lighting and setting, some of the things that Shakespeare was not fortunate enough to have in his time. All of the scenes where love blooms are usually outside in Branagh’s production; the outdoor landscape is very light-hearted and highlights the affectionate nature. The talks of love and courtship take place out in the green, in an airy setting where the mood is tranquil and cheerful. Villainy thrives in dimly lit areas. When the audience is exposed to Don John’s true nature it takes place in the dark sort of dungeon-like place, which is suited for evil. Branagh must also be commended on his use of the outdoors; he takes advantage of his environment by taking his production outside whereas Shakespeare was limited to the stage. Branagh’s use of this also enables his production to be more appealing to the audience and more understanding as most of the playful scenes take place outdoors. The wedding scene takes place outside in a merry environment which is supposed to make the shaming scene lighter. Branagh’s rendition of Much Ado about Nothing is very similar in meaning to that of the original text and deserves a certain level of credit for his precision. Branagh saw to the needs of a modern audience and set his production to their appeal. His use of comedy, lighting, cinematography and costuming each contribute significantly in their own way to the play. Although Branagh made a few mistakes; for example casting Keaton as Dogberry, which was the most negatively critiqued character. The critic James Berardinelli also says that Reeves’ casting has â€Å"missed its mark† and â€Å"modern actors who seem out of place in the period setting†. Branagh chose to base his main focus on the Elizabethans’ preoccupation with loyalty and chastity rather than on their fixation with outward appearances. It can be concluded that Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of Much Ado about Nothing is without a doubt considerably accurate in terms of its acquiescence with the text. Despite the fact that he does not capture everything in the play, the pieces which he does, enables a clearer understanding of the play for a modern day audience.

Bridgeton Case And Industries - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 461 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/09/25 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? Bridgeton Case Bridgeton Industries is faced with a difficult decision. Manifolds have been their most profitable product but based off of their recently developed classifications for products it has fallen to the lowest class. The lowest class is then designated to be outsourced. There are many implications for the decision to stop making manifolds. If they eliminate them they are losing almost half of their sales totals ($226,542-$93,120= $133,422). This would then in turn drastically reduce the factory profit from $63,501 to negative profit. Outsourcing the manifolds would just create a similar problem for the remaining products that the manifolds experienced. Since mufflers and oil pans were discontinued the direct labor on manifolds took up a much greater percentage. Therefore since overhead is based off direct labor, more overhead was allocated to manifolds. If the manifolds were eliminated the labor would be more directed to fuel tanks and doors. Then more overhe ad will be allocated to those products and essentially they will be soon deemed unprofitable and pushed down to class III. The problem with using a single overhead pool is that we aren’t able to see what overhead costs are directly related to each product. The second problem is that overhead is based off of direct labor. The more labor costs the products have the more overhead that is being allocated to them. The profits from manifolds for 1990 are: Sales Revenue$93,120 Direct Material$35,725 Direct Labor$6,540 Overhead$36,820 Gross Profit$14,820 This gross profit is a significant decrease from the previous year. Although sales for manifolds have increased from 1989 to 1990 so have many other things. Direct materials have increased because stainless steel has a high cost. Direct labor has increased because they were using people that were in the retaining job pool formed by the union to time the lines so they could observe operations and create â€Å"uptime reports. This increase in labor wasn’t necessarily specific to manifolds but since ACF uses one overhead pool the costs were still allocated to manifolds. It is of my opinion that the ACF should not discontinue manifolds. If the projections are correct the demand for stainless steel manifolds would increase dramatically and it would just be foolish for them to eliminate a product that could very well become extremely profitable for them in the near future. Not only are accounting for almost half the sales profits right now but they are what seems to me the one product with the most potential for growth. If I were a manager at ACF I would try to work out a better system to allocate overhead and work harder to specifically allocate overhead to the product they are affecting. Once this happens there will most likely be a significant difference in the gross profits they find for each product. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Bridgeton Case And Industries" essay for you Create order

The Play Distracted By Lisa Loomer Essay - 986 Words

The play Distracted by Lisa Loomer talks about a 9 year old boy who has trouble learning in school. He screams at his parents and the teacher suspects the boy may have ADHD. The mom received some advice from her friends and the psychiatrist suggests Ritalin. The father, on the other hand,disagrees. There is a family conflict between the mom and dad. Then, in the other speaker series I attended was Immigrant nation. It is a documentary film directed by Esau Melendaz. Its primary focus was about an undocumented immigrant who was deported back to her country. She refused to go back and was forced to stay in an asylum or one year. As a result,she began the immigration reform movement. People of whom were from different cultures supported her. The third Speaker series, I attended, was Working for our political environment and Personal Health by Jill Stein. There, Dr. Stein pointed the dysfunctional ways of the political system. She advocated for proper attention for these problems such as: free education, healthy food and a pollution free environment. The final event was the Transformative Social Justice through Radical Science Fiction by Adrennie Brown. The speech was mainly about change that could be brought upon the world through sci-fi . She talked about, social, racial and sex justice. After listening to these events, it made me realize that it’s every individual responsibility to bring change to our community. For starters, our community involvement has very