The tempest: film response paper - Essay Example

Instead of being understood as an equal partner with her spouse, the woman, during this period of time, was mainly understood as less important; never considered at any time as the “head of a household” or as important as a man. Shockingly, even the English clergy once went so far as to state that the female may have no everlasting soul. Ultimately, the level of understanding that is being presented is one in which the female was categorically and completely dismissed with regards to her level of inherent worth; as compared to her male counterpart.

This defined why the role of a woman in Shakespeare’s plays like “The Tempest” was mainly performed by a man; even though there were learned women who would bring the script more lively and actual than a man attempting to play a female’s role via an elaborate disguise. Moreover, many of these women were never at any time given their feminine touch because they were still described with the personality of a male. The role of a choice of a male character in the acting of the 2010 version of “The Tempest” necessarily makes the work look more “original”.

This is due to the fact that because the work encourages all the parties to participate in the work of the acting, a more realistic result is provided to the viewer. From 1900-1930 this role was mainly played by a males; as such, the change to the role of a female taking the stage bring a further level of creativity due the breakdown of the monotony of the watching of a single gender engage with all of the roles in the script. In addition, the role that Ariel had to undertake involved a great deal of time and persistence that a male character would not be well fitted to play due to the energy required.

With the change of several characters in the movie, the balance of the characters would also have played a role in helping to avoid congestion of a single gender in the act. Thus, this further helps emphasize the beliefs the author had with regards to the need for suitable choosing the correct gendered actor for the part. Hence the male actor in the 2010 version is more creative and eye catching as compared to the script that involved a female actor of the late 20th century. Finally, most of the scenes were written in the form of a male command; which makes it stronger and more actual when a male cast takes the role of playing the script.

As can be concluded from history, females were not recognized during the 16 or 17th century and this had a great impact with regards to the way in which playwrights and others engaged with subject matter, wrote scripts, and sought to integrate levels of understanding and emotions with their audience. Further, even though it is obvious that this particular approach to understanding women as second class citizens is invariably wrong, it cannot be assumed that merely because this was perpetrated, seeking to engage with these plays in an “enlightened” manner will yield a “better” result.

Rather, it must be understood and appreciated that even though there are which women are/were represented within such plays, the utilization of men as a means of engaging with the