War and Massacre, by Thomas Nagel - 872 Words

In â€Å"War and Massacre† by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good. In mid-November of last†¦show more content†¦Nonetheless, such a position according to Nagel would be considered a prohibited act in war, even though the act was done for the overall good of the region. In his argument in his piece War and Massacre, he creates this dialectic between Utilitarianism and Kantianism (Absolutism). Nagel begins his theory with two premises. His first premise discusses the idea that war and conflict is a relation between persons and therefore the way people treat people in the context of war must be considered under a moral paradigm. His second premise follows two classes of absolutist’s restrictions; who can count as a legitimate target of attack and what counts as a legitimate manner of attack. Based on these premises, it is clear that Nagel would suggest that such an action by the IDF would under no circumstance be morally justifiable by these premises even when the stakes are high. This is simply because an absolutists view would hold th at â€Å"one may not kill another person under any circumstances, no matter what good would be achieved or evil thereby† (126, War and Massacre). Therefore Nagel would still deem a militant commanderShow MoreRelatedReview : War And Massacre By Thomas Nagel2297 Words   |  10 Pages Kinshuk Sen Philosophy 4 Robert C. Hughes Discussion 1G O. Taiwo Paper 2 Is Everything Truly Fair in War? Absolutism is a political theory that views all values and principles as unconditional, rather than as relative, dependent, or changeable entities. The school of thought is associated with the perception of interpersonal relationships, wherein one views oneself as a small being interacting with others in a larger system. It limits the effect of Utilitarianism, a form of belief that believesRead MoreThe Lai Massacre And The Vietnam War1186 Words   |  5 Pagesthe Lai Massacre violated the international humanitarian law of war. The Lai Massacre and the Vietnam War raises critical questions about how America conduct war and its military leadership in Vietnam. The massacre of innocent unarmed civilians illustrates the horrendous war crime committed by American soldiers. Lippman discusses how the United States tried to keep the events of My Lai Massacre from the public. The My Lai Massacre makes me wonder if this was only one of the many massacres in VietnamRead MoreKilling Innocent Ci vilian During War977 Words   |  4 PagesCivilian during War Wars in our history have told human beings of the atrocities and horror our predecessors have committed and faced. The moral question at hand of killing of innocent civilian during war have been long debated by the people whether it was right to end the lives of people who are not involved in the war in order to stop the greater numbers of casualties that would have come without it as well to punish the enemies for their evil. Though these casualties during war already been doneRead More Democracy and Political Obligation Essay4061 Words   |  17 Pageshave a legitimation function for actions that seem to be morally reprehensible, this concept must be linked to a concept of political responsibility and obligation. Such renowned moral philosophers as Michael Walzer and, though more hesitantly, Thomas Nagel and Bernard Williams, seem to accept that political necessity can cause the paradox that responsible politicians must get their hands dirty and commit moral crimes. (2) From a Kantian moral point of view, there can be no other necessity for free

Women’s Treatment in Death of a Salesman - 1463 Words

Women’s treatment in Death of a Salesman December 11, 2012 Abstract In our today’s men and women hold equal rights, however, in times prior to the 1950’s the majority of people would agree men held favorable positions and were said to be superior over women. Unfortunately this behavior still exists in countries. Arthur Miller’s, Death of a Salesman probes into these issues and solidifies how the past plagued woman. Miller categorizes women into two buckets; housewives or whores. The play gave good reason for women to take a look at their lives and essentially helped open their eyes. Some might even say it helped start the women’s movement. Death of a Salesman The play portrays women as being inferior to men and used†¦show more content†¦Biff even commented on this and says â€Å"He always wiped the floor with you† (Miller, 1949, Pg 139). Linda could have done something to stop Willy from killing himself. She unfortunately did nothing and during the REQUIEM, says â€Å"We’re free† (Miller, 1949, Pg 139), this especially tells the audience how Willy’s death has released the entire family from Willy’s suffering. This also gives an indication that Linda is now able to live her life without a controlling, cheating husband that always shoved her aside. Miller’s play demonstrates that women have the ability to accomplish things in life, but sometimes must be freed of those that control them. Women in the business world within this time period are marked as objects of sex simply because they are there and their function is to serve men. In one scene, Willy, deeply and loudly involved in one of his flashbacks, approaches Charleys office to borrow money. Jenny, Charleys secretary, tells Bernard that Willy is arguing with himself and that she cannot deal with Willy anymore. Jenny was insightful and a hard working woman. No doubt she also was anticipating his condescending remarks when Willy says, Howre ya? Workin’ or still honest? (Miller, 1949, Pg 90). Willy is implying her income is made through prostitution. She replies in a polite way, and Willy again turns to sexual innuendo: Not much anymore, Jenny. Ha, ha! (Miller, 1949, Pg 90). Sara Evans, book â€Å"Born for Liberty: AShow MoreRelatedDeath of a Salesman vs. Fifth Business, Feminist Perspective1462 Words   |  6 PagesComparative Essay Fifth Business by Roberson Davies and Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller Throughout most of history woman have faced an imbalance within their social class opposed to the male gender. They have had fewer rights and much fewer career opportunities, the stereotype that a women’s place is in the home is due to the most socially accepted and common career of wifehood and motherhood. Through the comparison of Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller and Fifth Business by Robertson DaviesRead MoreBernard Malamud Short Stories1443 Words   |  6 PagesAkin to the relationship Panessa develops with Mr. Schlegel in â€Å"The Bill,† when Kalish becomes a widow, she is caught in a vicious cycle wherein her pride and self-sufficiency contribute to the anguish she causes herself and Mr. Rosen, the ex-coffee salesman who wants to badly to assist her in her time of need. The symbolism in Both â€Å"The Bill† and â€Å"Take Pity† enhances readers’ understanding of the significance of the theme. Both narratives feature two prevalent symbols – the nuclear family and the storesRead MoreFeminist Analysis Death of a Salesman Essay examples875 Words   |  4 PagesFeminist Analysis of Death of a Salesman What’s great about this play is gives us insight into the past and focuses on an average family and provides lots of material to do a feminist analysis of. The most prominent woman figure in this play is Linda, but the male characters in this play also give us insight into women’s roles and help feed the feminist analyses To get us started, how do the roles and identities of women in this play compare to that of the male figuresRead MoreKleptomania1818 Words   |  8 Pagesimpulse to steal objects that have little or no known value to them. The kleptomaniac could easily purchase the item that was stolen, but research has shown that most do it for the adrenaline rush experienced from stealing. Kleptomania has no treatment. People diagnosed with the disorder are advocated to go through psychotherapy or take an anti-depressant medication. As knowledge of kleptomania grows, society has grown more readily to accept it and many more theories about the cause of the disorderRead MoreEssay about Subjugaiton of women in death of a salesman2254 Words   |  10 Pagesphilandering actions that Happy and Willy promote and Biff ultimately rejects in Miller’s play Death of a Salesman1. Through the subordinate view of women that Willy holds, the treatment of women Happy engages in follow his fathe r’s greedy motives, and biff’s dynamic change in his view of women, Death of a Salesman portrays the subordinate view of women through objectification and subjugation. As a struggling salesman, Willy does not achieve the success and attention that he desires; consequently, he subjugatesRead More Oppression and Depression: The Effects of White Masculinity2725 Words   |  11 Pagescompletely failed, and according to society’s and their own standards, they are not worthy to be considered real men. White masculinity is the ideal design of an adult male. It is a model for every man in America from birth up until the moment of death. This ideal dictates preferences in society for both men and women. John F. Kasson claims that a man is â€Å"valued solely for his beauty, his body openly admired and aggressively pursued by [women] (as well as courted by his own sex)† (Kasson 27). Read MoreConsider the Theme of Transformation in Metamorphosis and the Yellow Wallpaper.3444 Words   |  14 Pagesinsect, by the description given by Kafka, possibly similar in appearance to a cockroach, although the description given does not allow the reader to make any definite identification. He has been the breadwinner of the family, working as a travelling salesman to keep a roof over the heads of his mother, father and younger sister. This is a service that he has got no thanks or recognition for from his parents who do nothing towards the up keep of the household and just expect Gregor to take care of everythingRead MoreFeminist Approach to Witchcraft; Case Study: Millers the Crucible6554 Words   |  27 Pagesan effort to deconstruct the phallologocentric sanctions implicit in Millers account of Abigails fate, Elizabeths confession, and Johns temptation and death.] Arthur Millers The Crucible is a disturbing work, not only because of the obvious moral dilemma that is irresolutely solved by John Proctors death, but also because of the treatment that Abigail and Elizabeth receive at Millers hands and at the hands of critics. In forty years of criticism very little has been said about the ways inRead MoreA Theoretical Perspective on Dowry Deaths in India22724 Words   |  91 PagesPerspective on Dowry Deaths in India Objectives: a) To understand the concept of dowry as has originated and evolved in India. b) To conceptualize modern day consequences of dowry system. c) To refer to various laws in India and find out reasons for ineffectuality. d) To analyze the trend lay down in this regard by way of various judicial decisions. e) To critically analyze the reasons for divergence between the object of law with regard to dowry death and the practiceRead MoreAmerican History Eoc Study Guide5327 Words   |  22 Pagessociety’s problems. (pg. 498) 11) Sweatshop: A small workshop set up in a tenement rather than in centralized factories such as a close and textile company. (pg. 473) 12) Progressive Reforms: The reforms were housing reforms, election reforms, women’s suffrage, society reforms, workplace reforms, reforms in living conditions, and government reforms. 13) Booker T. Washington: He founded the Tuskegee Institute. He believed that Blacks should accept segregation for the time being and should train

The Reconstruction Era free essay sample

This program was a federal government agency organized to help the freed slaves and should operate for at least a year. The Bureau encouraged former plantation owners to rebuild their plantations. To the freed blacks, the agency helped them ghettos, and they were given food supplies and land. Included also in this program was the supervision in equality in labor and management so that blacks may be treated fairly. Soon after President Lincoln was assassinated, Vice President Andrew Johnson took over as president. The Radical leaders believed that Lincoln plan was too intent (because they wanted 50 percent instead of ten).Nevertheless, the Moderate Republicans initially supported President Johnson and gave him a chance. President Johnson was a pro-slavery Democrat therefore he received much support from the Southern whites. The favor he enjoyed in the beginning from both sides could have probably created conceit in him not thinking that the Northerners wanted the South to be in submission, and that they wanted a better situation for the African-Americans. Contrary to the Radical leaders conviction, President Johnson insisted that the Southern tastes should be left to rebuild themselves in the way they had been always used to.He readmitted the southern states using Lincoln Ten-Percent Plan and granted southerners full pardon. Furthermore, he favored the aristocrats by returning all their properties (except their slaves). In fact by 1 866, 7,000 Presidential pardons had been granted. In the end, under President Johnnys approval, many former Confederate leaders (those who participated in the civil war) were eventually allowed to hold government office. To make matters worse, Johnson never confronted issues such as the brutal beatings f African-Americans. And by being quiet, he favored harsh laws such as the Black Codes, so the whites can assert their supremacy. These Black Codes were laws passed by Southern states in 1865 and 1866 to inhibit the Black peoples freedom and then force them to work for the plantation owners at very low wages. In these Black Codes law, local authorities where allowed to arrest the Black people and force them to involuntary labor as their penalty. It was like bringing them back to slavery. In South Carolina specifically, discrimination among African-Americans was evident. They were burdened to pay a special tax if they were not farmers or servants.Public service opportunities were withheld from them such as orphanages, parks, and schools. In response to these, the Congress proposed to enforce and extend the Freedmans Bureau and on February 18, 1866, Johnson vetoed the bill. That same year the Congress introduced the Civil Rights Act bill and again President Johnson vetoed it. But this time the Radical leaders overturned it. Now the political power struggle between President Johnson and the Congress was clear. But when Radical Republican leaders increased their power in Congress by 1 866, Prestidigitation began to lose his influence.In 1867 Congress (the Moderate and Radical Republicans combined) amended the Constitution, approved the Fourteenth Amendment and it was ratified July 9, 1868. The amendment was designed to put the principles in the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution. The first part of the amendment entitles citizenship to every person born in the United States (except Indians on reservations). The second part of the Amendment says that if a state denies that equality dated above, that state will be penalized by a reduction of its representatives.Finally, the third part prohibits former Confederates to be elected to government positions (state or national). Hence, after that, the Southern Unionists (Southerners who supported the Union during the War) ruled over the ex-confederates. In 1867 the South aristocrats were enraged and supported a terrorist counterattack against racial equality and African American political advancement through UK Klux Klan. They called politicians from the North as carpetbaggers who they said had come south to take advantage of their demise.The Federal government had to intervene through the Military Reconstruction Act. It divided the South into five military districts. This is like putting teeth to the Amendment with the help Of military force to protect black property and citizens. Finally, blacks, including those who had recently been freed, began to vote without fear and they got elected to government offices. The Congress seemed fully in control towards one goal for the Reconstruction; all- except President Johnson. Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, restricting Johnson in firing Cabinet officials.When Johnson persisted in trying to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the Radical leaders acted to impeach him. The House of Representatives voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson, but the Senate failed to convict him by a single vote. That impeachment was a failure but the process weakened him and from that time on he stopped opposing the Congress. The Reconstruction program as handled by the Radical Republicans was effective in achieving equality and fairness to the newly freed African-Americans. However, as the years Went by, those who led the Radical Republicans-Thatched Stevens, Charles Sumner, Wendell Phillipseither have died or have lost their political power. Because of that, the northerners lost their motivation about participating in the reconstruction program. They thought that the emancipation of the slaves was a mistake, and that the right to vote would be enough to protect the rights of the blacks. Moreover, the economic depression of 1873 created a shortage in the governments budget in maintaining federal military occupation of the South. By 1875, although still part of the governments agenda, the reconstruction was in essence over. Congress and the radicals grew tired of federal involvement in the South. Soon, military activity was withdrawn in 1877 and this resulted to the rise of white supremacy while the African-Americans where back to being terrorized and downgraded. Most African Americans had no choice but to become agricultural laborers or sharecroppers. The Reconstruction program may not be successful at that period, but the Fourteenth Amendment in the Constitution in the coming years paved the way towards the realization of the freedom and equality the modern African-Americans enjoy today.

Two versions of the movie Romeo and Juliet Essay Example

Two versions of the movie Romeo and Juliet Paper In class, we watched two versions of the movie Romeo and Juliet, which was adapted from William Shakespeares play. We watched a version directed by Franco Zeffirelli (1968) and another by modern director Baz Luhrmann (1996). In addition, we read extracts from the Romeo and Juliet script we received. Our task was to compare and contrast the prologue and opening scenes of the two movies, and give our views. The prologue of Franco Zeffirellis version opens with a sweeping shot of the rolling hills of Verona. Gentle, soothing music is playing that fits in with the idyllic and peaceful scenery. The voiceover begins with a sombre, almost sympathetic tone of voice that fits in well with the music that plays in the background. It is easy to tell from the outset that Zeffirelli was aiming for authenticity, even going as far as to film the scenes in Verona. Timing was important in Zeffirellis version and the line two star-crossed lovers take their lives is said at the same time the title of the film, Romeo and Juliet, appears. This identifies the two star-crossed lovers as Romeo and Juliet, and in a way tells you the outcome of the story before it has even started. An important point to note is that the whole prologue is read, as this is not the case with other versions. The opening scene is set in a market town on a busy trading day. Sampson and Gregory, two servants of the Capulet house, are in the town when they clash with Abraham and another man, of the house of Montague. Both sets of men are dressed in the liveries of their respective houses, the Capulets in striking red and yellow and the Montagues in darker attire. We will write a custom essay sample on Two versions of the movie Romeo and Juliet specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Two versions of the movie Romeo and Juliet specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Two versions of the movie Romeo and Juliet specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer This makes them stand out from the crowd and instantly recognisable in the chaos that follows, and also ties in with the line Two households both alike in dignity which is read in the prologue, as they are both dressed in elegant, rich looking clothes. Gregory and Sampson plan to insult the Montague men. Gregory I will frown, as I pass by, and let them take it as they list. Sampson Nay, as they dare, I will bite my thumb at them, which is a disgrace to them, if they bear it. Line 33-36. In the day of Shakespeare, biting your thumb at someone was considered highly insulting, possibly one of the worst insults you could use on a person. This was likely to infuriate Abraham and his friend. Abraham Do you bite your thumb at us, sir? Sampson I do bite my thumb, sir. Abraham Do you bite your thumb at us, sir? Sampson (aside to Gregory) Is the law of our side, if I say Ay? Gregory (aside to Sampson) No. Sampson I do not bite my thumb at you, sir; but I bite my thumb, sir. Line 37-44 Abraham repeats the line Do you bite your thumb at us, sir? because Sampson has refused to answer him the first time. Sampson consults Gregory and, knowing that the law will not be on their side if he says yes, tells Abraham that he does not bite his thumb at him, but bites his thumb. As the swordfight between the two houses is about to start, Sampson says; Draw, draw if you be men! Sampson repeats the word draw twice to emphasise its importance, and tries to goad Abraham into drawing his sword for a battle. Abraham draws his sword, but Benvolio enters to try and restore some peace. Benvolio is trying his best to bring calm to the situation, but the entrance of Tybalt sparks things off again. Benvolio Part, fools! Put up your swords! You know not what you do. Tybalt What, are thou drawn among these heartless hinds? Turn thee, Benvolio, look upon thy death. Benvolio I do but keep the peace. Put up thy sword, Or manage it to part these men with me Tybalt What, drawn, and talk of peace? I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee. Have at thee, coward! Line 56-65 He mocks Benvolio, who is trying to be civil towards Tybalt. What, drawn, and talk of peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee. This line underlines just how much hatred Tybalt has for Benvolio and his Montague family. Tybalt also says; Turn thee, Benvolio, look upon thy death. Tybalt is even threatening to kill Benvolio, just because he is a Montague and is trying to keep the peace. This scene says a lot for the two characters personalities, with Benvolio being polite, civil, and peaceful. Tybalt, however, is arrogant, aggressive and bitter. When Tybalt says What, drawn, and talk of peace? he almost finds it amusing, and laughs, mocking Benvolio. His mood changes however, and his tone becomes sinister when he says, I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee. Suddenly, there is chaos and everyone is fighting, the screen is filled with people fighting but in the entire calamity, Tybalt and Benvolio still stand out in their house colours. Zeffirelli shows the scale of the conflict by using aerial and ground shots, plus hundreds of extras. The leaders of the households even get involved. Capulet What noise is this? Give me my long sword, ho! Lady Capulet A crutch, a crutch! Why call you for a sword? Capulet My sword, I say! Old Montague is come, And flourishes his blade in spite of me Line 67-71 Capulet calls for his sword, but Lady Capulet cannot understand why. She tries to restrain him but is unsuccessful. Capulet is furious that Montague could be winning the battle. Montague Thou villain Capulet. Hold me not, let me go. Lady Montague Thou shalt not stir one foot to seek a foe. Line 72-73 Montague spots Capulet fighting, and goes to battle him. His wife, Lady Capulet, tries to hold him back and says;Thou shalt not stir one foot to seek a foe. which means that he will not go out looking for his enemies. It is then that Prince Escalus, followed by his cortege, enters to a flurry of trumpets sounding. Everyone immediately stops, and pays attention to the Prince. He delivers his speech to the two households, finishing with the lines; If you ever disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of peace. He warns the two leaders of the households that if there is any more trouble from them, they shall be killed. During his speech, he is atop a horse, which shows his authority over the civilians. He reads his speech in a commanding, aggressive voice, as if he truly means what he is saying. Those who were fighting pay attention to his every word, and the scene is silent apart from his voice and the sound of his horses hooves on the dirt. This shows that people respect him and are interested to hear what he is saying. At the end of his speech, Prince Escalus orders Capulet to come with him for talks to put an end to this civil war, and orders Montague to report to him later. As soon as the Princes speech is finished, everyone but Montague, Lady Montague and Benvolio leave. Baz Luhrmann, is his version of the play, presents the first prologue as a news bulletin. Presenting it as a news bulletin underlines its importance, and makes people sit up and take notice of an important part of the play. With the bulletin being on television, this sets up the play to be a more modern version, much apart from Franco Zeffirellis version, which is set in the day of Shakespeare. The television is in a darkened room, with no other objects and nothing else at all to distract you from the prologue. Toward the end of the prologue, the camera zooms in toward to television, and drags the viewer into the play. Another thing to point out is the caption above the newsreaders left shoulder. It is a picture of a broken ring, with the words star-crossed lovers underneath. The ring is a pictorial representation of the line death-marked love, whilst the words underneath are probably the most important of the prologue, and are emphasised in both prologues of Baz Luhrmanns version The second version of the prologue in this film is not read in whole. Instead, only the first six lines are read, as these are the most important of the prologue and tell you the plot and outcome of the play. They are emphasised in many different ways. The phrases ancient grudge and new mutiny are shown as newspaper headlines, to make them seem important. Although one line in the prologue, the line star-crossed lovers take their life is split into two parts in the second prologue. First, we see the phrase star-crossed lovers on screen. It is in bold, block capitals, white writing and set against a black background, which is very striking and stands out. Straight after, the phrase Take their life flashes on screen, in the same effect, white writing against a black background. The writing, however, is bigger, and the letter T is shown as a cross (i ). This symbolizes Christ, who sacrificed himself for our sins, and ties in with the belief that Romeo and Juliet sacrificed themselves. Symbols of Christ appear many times during the prologue and opening scene. We learn that the play is set in a fictional area called Verona Beach. This updates the setting to make it sound more modern and cool, while still keeping with the setting of the play, Verona. We see a board welcoming people to Verona Beach just after the words In fair Verona, where we lay our scene are on screen. As the camera pans around the city, we see two skyscrapers, each with the names Montague and Capulet on top of them. This shows the social status and influence of the two warring families, and fits in with the line Two households, both alike in dignity, as both skyscrapers are identical and would not be able to be told apart but for the family names on top of them. In between the two skyscrapers is a statue of Christ, which again symbolizes the sacrifice he made. The first scene starts with the Montague boys speeding down a highway in their car. In the car are Benvolio, Sampson and Gregory. On the back of Gregorys head is a tattoo with the word Montague and three interlocking circles above it, which is a symbol that is also seen on the top of the Montague skyscraper. The shot is frozen, and the words The Montague Boys appear, and if it had not already been established that it was them, this confirms it. They are dressed in colourful tropical-style shirts, and this makes them easily identifiable. The car pulls into a service station, and the camera focuses on the license plate of the car. It reads MON 005. As Benvolio steps out of the car to go to the toilet, he warns his passengers; The quarrel is between our masters, and one replies and us their men. This shows that they are prepared to battle for their master, and are not scared of the Capulets. As the two Montague Boys are waiting for Benvolio, the Capulet car pulls into the garage. The license plate of it reads CAP 005. The license plates of the cars make them easy to identify. Tybalt steps out of the car, and stubs his cigar out on the ground. Just then, a group of nuns emerges from the shop, and the Montague boys begin to mock them and also their strict Catholic ways. When their mini-bus drives away, Abra, of the house of Capulet, is seen. He is angry, because the Montague boys have made fun of his Catholic religion. We learn that the Capulets are Catholic by the many times that symbols of Jesus appear on their clothing and guns. The Montague boys think that there is going to be trouble, and pull back their shirts to reveal their guns to Abra, who does the same. On the butt of the guns are the crests of the respective houses. Abra smiles to reveal a silver mouthpiece with the word SIN emblazoned across it. This scares the Montague boys and they fall back in shock. The Capulets burst out laughing, and begin to taunt and mock them, before getting back into their car. Sampson is clearly humiliated, and says; I will bite my thumb at them, which is a disgrace to them, if they bear it. He bites his thumb at them, and Abra sees Sampson mock him in the mirror. He steps out of the car. Abra Do you bite your thumb at us, sir? Sampson I do bite my thumb, sir. Abra Do you bite your thumb at us, sir? Sampson Is the law of our side, if I say yes? Gregory No. Sampson I do not bite my thumb at you, sir; but I bite my thumb, sir. Gregory Do you quarrel, sir? Abra Quarrel, sir? No, sir. Sampson But if you do sir, I am for you. I serve as good a man as you Abra No better? Sampson Well sir. Gregory Say better, here comes our Masters kinsman Sampson Yes, better, sir. Abra You lie. Sampson Draw, if you be men! Their guns come out, and it is at this moment that Benvolio comes from the toilet. He sees that there is going to be trouble, and brandishes his gun. The camera zooms in on his gun, and it reveals the words Sword 9mm etched on the barrel of the gun. Put up your swords! he says. The camera focuses on a sign saying Add more fuel to your fire as if to say that by telling them to put up their guns, he is making the situation worse. Tybalt steps from the car, and says; What, are thou drawn among these heartless hinds? Turn thee, Benvolio, look upon thy death. Benvolio replies; I do but keep the peace. Put up thy sword, Or manage it to part these men with me. Tybalt is infuriated by what Benvolio has just asked him to do. He lights a cigar, and says; Peace? Peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee. Between saying all Montagues and and thee Tybalt drops the match with which he lit his cigar, and grinds it into the ground, as if showing Benvolio what he plans to do to him. Tybalt then reaches into his jacket, and pulls out his gun. On the handle of his gun we see a picture of Jesus, and also one on his jacket. He fires a shot at Benvolio, who falls to the ground clutching his chest, and his gun drops to the ground. During the gun battle that follows, we see that one of the Capulet Boys has a cross shaven into the back of his head, which is another representation of Jesus. Sampson and Gregory flee to the car, and begin to speed away. As they are doing so, Tybalt aims his gun toward Gregory and shoots him in the chest. Tybalt then drops his cigar to the ground, which ignites that spilling fuel. He is surprised to see Benvolio pick himself up from the ground, grab his gun and run off into the traffic firing shots back at Tybalt. As Tybalt chases after Benvolio, we are left to look at the crumbling service station, and the camera centres on a newspaper headline, which reads RIOT AND DISHONOUR. This is most likely reporting on one of the previous skirmishes between the two households. There is also a burning flyer, which says; Montague vs. Capulet 2nd Brawl This tells us that there have already been two brawls between the two households. The next scene gives us a panning shot of the two skyscrapers, with helicopters whirring around them and the city in total chaos. We see Captain Princes helicopter with both his name and the number 0001 on the side. This gives the impression that he holds the most important job in the Verona Beach Police Department. Montague is sitting in his office, when he turns round and sees the news bulletin reporting a 3rd Civil Brawl. Above the caption, there is a picture of Benvolio wielding his gun, as if to make it seem he is the aggressor when really he was the peacemaker. Montague is furious, and says to his wife; Give me my long sword, ho! His long sword is a bigger version of the pistol used in the gunfight at the service station. Lady Montague replies; Thou shalt not stir one foot to seek a foe, and pulls his hand away from the weapon. Luhrmann has given Lady Montague more influence over her husband, which is more suited to a modern version. After this, the next thing we see is Tybalt and Benvolio, guns drawn, aimed at each other and screaming at each other. Captain Prince is shouting orders at them from his helicopter in an aggressive and command tone of voice. The fact that he is in a higher position than them gives him a sense of power and influence. Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace, Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground. On pain of torture, from those bloody hands, Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground. Obeying his orders, Benvolio and Tybalt drop their weapons to the ground. The action switches from the chaotic streets to Captain Princes office. This makes things seem more formal. In the room are Capulet, Montague, Tybalt and Benvolio. Tybalt is standing behind Capulet, and Benvolio standing behind Montague. They are like silent supporters. During Princes speech, the only sound that can be heard is his voice. This shows that he has their respect. He says; Three civil brawls, bred of an airy word, By thee, old Capulet, and Montague, Have thrice disturbed the quiet of our streets. If ever you disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace. He warns the two leaders of the households that if there is any more trouble and either is to blame, they will be killed. When he says Three civil brawls the camera moves from Montague, to Capulet and then back to Prince. In all this time, he is the only one speaking. This gives an impression of his influence over Montague and Capulet and their silence shows how much they respect him. He ends on the words If ever you disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace. This makes him seem more serious and threatening and underlines the power and authority he holds over the two leaders of the households. This is probably his most important line of his speech. Both versions, although set in completely different time periods, bear some resemblance. Luhrmann manages to use almost exactly the same language as Franco Zeffirelli does, without making it seem outdated, or making it difficult to understand. The prologues of each are certainly the most different. It is easy to tell that Zeffirelli and Luhrmann were aiming for completely different audiences when filming their movies. Zeffirelli aimed for authenticity, right down to filming the scenes in Verona, while Luhrmann wanted to modernise the script and update the setting. Zeffirelli was most likely aiming for a theatre-going audience who would be interested to see how the play would be adapted for the big screen, and he did not disappoint. He provides a realistic, authentic version of the play that would be fit for theatre. The script is accurate and the battle scenes draw you in give you a fantastic impression of the scale of the battle, at some points it seems as if everyone on the screen is fighting. Zeffirelli does this with aerial and ground shots that make it seem as if there are more people than there really are. Luhrmann, however, aimed for a much younger audience. He set of the film in Verona Beach, and many of the scenes were filmed in Venice Beach in California. Most of the main actors and actress were, at the time, young up-and-coming actors who many youngsters then will have heard of. They wore casual clothes, had spiked hair and many of these seemingly unimportant things would appeal to a young audience as they feel they would be able to relate to them. While the story may seem soppy to men, they would be drawn in by the gunfights and conflict between the two families. Luhrmann most likely aimed for a teenage audience, of both genders, while Zeffirelli was probably looking for an older, mature audience when he set out to make his. Of the two versions, I much preferred Baz Luhrmanns. Right from the start, I was interested. There was far most action, the pace was more frantic and I felt more at home watching a film based in the modern day rather than one based in Shakespearean times. I thought that Franco Zeffirelli stuck to the script too much and very little of his own work went into the movie, but rather he was realising Shakespeares text in a very unoriginal way. Baz Luhrmanns team obviously thought long and hard as to how they would present the movie, and I think they did a very good job with it. It is an original idea and works well. There was not one moment in Franco Zeffirellis version that was better than the same part in Luhrmanns version. My favourite part of both movies was the fighting scenes. Of the two, Baz Luhrmanns was far superior and well thought-out, and the timing was very good with the camera focusing on the faces of the Montagues and Capulets at critical times. The Princes entrance in Zeffirellis version was rather disappointing as, although he had their respect and they listened attentively to him, I never fully got the impression that he had a lot of power over them. I thought that Captain Princes entrance in Luhrmanns version was much better as we all recognise police officers as authoritative figures. Overall, I thought Baz Luhrmanns version was much better than Franco Zeffirellis and, if the opening scene is anything to go by, I would definitely consider watching the film in its entirety.