How was and is the cold war reflected culturally Essay

How was and is the cold war reflected culturally - Essay Example The commonalities (Cold War order) began from the re-formation of the century long olden times of imperialism and nationalism. The Cold War enmity provided the edge of orientation in which a narrative rapport between imperialism and nationalism wanted to lodge developments such as decolonization and the universal rights uprising; in turn, this adjustment generated developmentalism, multiculturalism, militarism, and new ideologies and modes of individuality configuration, thus producing a novel gathering. The evolving pattern changed and was exaggerated by other chronological factors together with race, femininity, division, and creed among others.1 Era fashioned by structures rising from axis of supremacy that lean to control historical existence. Like other hegemonic configurations, such organizations have a tendency to guide and confine the thoughts of the communal, the biased and selfhood, but these organizations also have violently jagged things and there are countless zones of existence that are relatively unhurt by them. Thus in some places, such as the Japanese territory, exacting aspects, such as developmental imperialism, began prior to the Cold War. One might also argue that in East Asia, the Cold War arrangements began to untie a decade before 1989. The cold war dominated influence on several aspects of people in United States society for almost second half of the twentieth century. It rose as a result of adversary values linking America, representing democracy and capitalism, and Soviet Union, advocating socialism and dictatorship. As the superpowers after the World War II, disputation among the Soviets and Americans rose to be a universal conflict. 2 Cold war was different from several other wars as it was mostly based on propaganda war and much of military activities. Vietnam wars and the Korean wars are crucial instances of military intrusion by the United

Balloon Frame Constructions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Balloon Frame Constructions - Essay Example The studs of wood are used to erect walls from the foundation up to the roofline that is long, concealed and is obstructed by the ventricle channels. The floor joint are normally hung from the wall studs. .Incase fire elapses in this kind of construction it spreads from the lower floors up to the floor level which leads to the collapse of the structure (Avillo, 2002, p.123). The ventricle combustion spaces are found between the walls of the studs of a balloon frame building enhancing the spread of fires from one door to the next. In case the fire spreads into the stud space or if it originates from the stud place it easily spreads from the ventricle cavity into the horizontal joints and into the attic space. When re-modeling a balloon frame building, fire stopping techniques may or may not be installed .The reason for this decision is because installation of the fire protective mechanisms can be an expensive process. It has been observed that the sprinklers cannot be used in extinguishing fires in the balloon fire structures. The basement of the balloon-frame building can easily catch fire; this is because it has an impediment access to the entire structure through using the unfirestoppable walls.

Impact of Poor Service Quality in Healthcare

Impact of Poor Service Quality in Healthcare Issue 1 The impact that poor service quality will have on Kindly Residential Care Rest Home as a geriatric service organisation and stakeholder in terms of Reputation Accountabilities in both the private and public sector Stakeholders Answer: Residential carerefers to continuing care agreed to adults or offspring who reside in a suburban setting to a certain extent than in their own home or family home. Voluntary caregivershome carehome-based careKindly Residential Rest Home offers several of services to the residents of the facility to have satisfactory services that will give the residents a meaningful life and quality care that they deserve. With poor services, there will be a reflect of feedbacks and may lead to poor reputation or may consider a facility with low standards. Accountabilities from public and private sectors will also take at risk for giving a facility with poor services offered on its residents that is not acceptable to the amount of payment the residents that they are paying to. It also a risk on its business with such a poor services being done. Because of unsatisfactory of its client, may lead to revolt and may file justifiable sanctions that restricts the funds of each services being offered to the residents, as first stated on what they have marketed. Organizations that hold fitness database or are part of network of health database have the task to guarantee the eminence and safety of health data. Such health database organizations can be created by business coalitions, built by entities supported with personal funds, mandate by state health legislation, or reputable by central accomplishment. Isolation and privacy are key fundamentals of ensure superiority in the health care system. To the extent that people worry about the confidentiality of the information that they present to physician and others, they force refuse to give in sequence, thus compromising the value of their own care, deterioration the quality of data used for other purposes, and causal to weakening in trust between patient and physician and between patient and health arrangement. If people fear that seeking particular kinds of medical services will make their health check times gone by accessible to employers, credit organizations, and others, they may even avoid on the lookout for needed health check care. In progress state protections often apply duty of discretion to the record keeper but these protections are no longer in upshot once the statistics have absent the record keeper’s been in command of. It is central to note that video-rental accounts, for example, have more centralized isolation fortification than health check records. Notwithstanding a large amount deliberate and debate, several important labours to secure national moment alone safeguard have not yet succeeded, even though current legislation may modify that. Both internal accountability and external accountability are important in ensuring the value of healthiness heed. InternalExternalThere are a range of residential care options accessible, depending on the requirements of the human being. Persons with disabilities, mental health problems, or scholarship difficulties are often cared for at home by paid or, such family and friends, with additional bear fromagencies. However, ifis not on hand or not fitting for the individual, residential care may be required. Reputation of a social entity is estimation about that article, uncharacteristically a result of common evaluation on a set of criterion. It is significant in trade, and many other fields. Reputation may be measured as a module of as distinct by others. Reputation is known to be and highly efficient in expected societies. It is a focus of learning in social, and technological. Its authority ranges from aggressive settings, like markets, to obliging ones, like firms, organisations, institution and communities. Furthermore, reputation acts on altered levels of society, character and supra-individual. At the supra-individual level, it concern groups, communities, collectives and nonfigurative social entity (such as firms, corporations, organizations, countries, cultures and even civilizations). It affects happening of like chalk and cheese scales, from on a daily basis life to associations between nations. Reputation is a primary gadget of, based upon disseminated, spur-of-the-moment social control. Quality-improvement and quality-management hard work to build up and propose care and to observe quality of care are indispensable. They engross health plans and fitness systems performing on their own scheme to measure and look up their routine and their patients outcome. Such efforts will also add force to the steps that physicians and other health care professionals can take now to improve the performance of narrow health care institutions and health plans. Monitoring of quality of care will also be needed to ensure the truthfulness of the quality-of-care in turn that plans report and to build assessments from a broader inhabitant’s outlook. It is vital that the impact of health-system changes on the quality of health care and the health standing of the entire people be track. Both public and private organizations are involved—often communally—in work to devise valid, unswerving, and realistic ways to measure and contrast the quality of care provided by health diplomacy, institutions, and clinicians. These dual accountabilities—internalexternal quality monitoring and improvements—are not well tacit by the health care community, policymakers, or regulars. They need to be persistently advanced and non-breakable. The wealth of public agencies at federal and state levels with oversight accountability and the range of private organization that endorse health care organizations and re-examine care, as well as internal quality-improvement efforts of health plans, would guide some to believe that declaration of quality is well in hand. Unfortunately, replication of endeavour and gap in dimension coexist. For example,methods for adjusting health-outcome and presentation method to reflect differences in the age, physical condition status, and other sort of health-plan members or other populations are recovering but are still derisory.Without correctly used to comparisons, we can get the wrong idea about how well strength campaign care for and serve their members. The difficulty of severity-adjusting outcome measures parallels the trouble of risk-adjusting government, employer, or other outgoings to health plans (in conduct that do not rely on folks who are ill to pay superior premium). Without properly adjusted expenses, we might make somebody pay plans that be a magnet for unhealthy and more-costly members (the plans that understanding difficult selection). Such fiscal incentives could challenge efforts to advance quality and hold health plans responsible for their behaviour. Thus, sound methods to alter payments to health strategy and comparisons of health plan presentation for differences in members characteristics are important. Stakeholders are all those people who have a wager (or share) in a meticulous issue or system. Stakeholders can be groups of people, organisations, institutions and sometimes even individuals. Other terms every so often used in a parallel way to stakeholders are â€Å"actors† and â€Å"interest groups†. The word â€Å"actors† stresses that stakeholders are vigorous and act together with each other. The use of the language â€Å"interest groups† indicate that individuals can be grouped according to a general interest. Stakeholders can be at any stage or location in society, from the worldwide to the public district, domestic or intra-household level. Stakeholders include all those who involve and are artificial by policies, decisions or actions within a meticulous system. The term stakeholder breakdown was first used in management science for identifying and address the interest of diverse stakeholders in business. Nowadays, stakeholder study is commonly used for: policy formulation, project formulation, implementation and evaluation For understanding and analysing complex situations in natural supply administration. Stakeholder analysis is a way of considerate a system from end to end its stakeholders. It looks at their concentration, objectives, supremacy and relationships. In considering stakeholders, it is sometimes helpful to believe their meaning and weight. Vital stakeholders are those whose desires are main to a project or study. High-ranking stakeholders are those who have the command to be in command of decisions in an movement or who can pressure others in the decision making procedure.

Aversive Conditioning Essay -- essays research papers

Aversive conditioning is a manufactured negative response to certain things, much like the operant conditioning developed by Skinner. The contingent behavior is behavior that, when performed, results in the delivery of specific consequences or reinforcers. This article described the measures taken to make coyotes stop wanting to kill lambs for food. The authors’ contention is that it may be possible to reconcile the desires of both ranchers and conservationists. The latter group wishes to enable the coyote and, perhaps other predators, to survive in the open range, as they have for millions of years. Species that kill farm animals include others: mountain lions, bears, bobcats, and red wolves as well as coyotes. This paper on aversive conditioning mainly addresses whether behavior of coyotes can be altered without affecting their survival in the wild. The question Mssrs. Gustavson and Garcia attempt to address is whether coyotes can be conditioned to kill animals such as mice, rabbits, gophers, and squirrels- species of no economic value in the western United States- while leaving sheep alone. Clearly, sheep have tremendous economic value in terms of meat and wool production, and ranchers as well as the general meat-consuming public have a vested interest in the survival and success of the ranching industry. Just as clearly, environmentalist and conservationists have an interest in seeing that certain species are enabled to survive in their native habitat, and not simply confined in zoos under whatever terms humans dictate. To see if they could make coyotes stop killing lambs, the authors first took a sample population of coyotes from different regions of Montana where coyotes were notorious for killing shepherds’ flocks. They captured seven coyotes, five from the wild and two from captivity. Presumably all of them loved to eat lamb meat. They fed them tainted lamb, wrapped in fresh lamb hide. The meat itself was not toxic to the long-term health of the coyotes that devoured it. Instead, it was laced with lithium chloride, which causes vomiting. One assumption made was that the lithium did not actually affect the taste of the meat. Therefore, the coyotes actually did consume the meat, and uniformly became sick after eating the lamb. As a result of associating the meat with vomiting the coyotes didn’t want to eat lamb anymore. On the contrary, they ran awa... ... eat them again. One such coyote killed and ate a rabbit within one week, albeit cautiously. Therefore, although it may be deemed a success to be able to state that a certain coyote is well on his/her way to hating lamb, it may be that these coyotes need repeated aversion therapy towards sheep, or towards other livestock which other ranchers might raise. Finally, even if aversion therapy turns out to be effective, or whether it must be repeated to be effective, there is reason to think that this behavior will not be self-perpetuating. There is no evidence produced that a coyote will avoid sheep simply because its mother does. Aversion to lamb meat is obviously a learned habit, not a genetic one. If all coyotes need to be captured, and perhaps tagged and periodically recaptured, in order persistently avoid or hate lamb meat, the conservationists are defeating their own purpose. For their plan to work, all coyotes will have to be captured and "domesticated" in some way. It would appear that, if this turns out to be the case, truly wild coyotes will have become a thing of the past, and they will not be allowed to roam free in their feral state in any real sense after all.

City Life vs Country Life Essay

The difference between city life and country life is that if you live in the city, you have barely any privacy but, in the country life there can be woods all around your house and no one can see you. In the city there are lots of apartments not really houses and in the country you have your own houses that are bigger and the more people can come over. Lastly in the city you can’t hunt, you can’t grow your own garden, and you can’t walk your dogs were would they do their business, but in the country you can have your own farm, you just let your dog’s run free, you can have your own garden and you can shoot your gun if you have one. I think you country life is better for you. see more:city life vs country life When you think about living in the city you’re excited at first and say let’s throw a party. Well everything going as plan. Then the lady/man comes home to the apartment next door they hear the party going on and they can’t sleep because it’s too loud so they come to your door and ask if we can keep it down. We are respectful and say yes we can. Well as we are trying to keep it down things get out of hand and the man/ lady next door calls the cops. The end parties over, but if we were out in the country it would be no problem throwing a party cause we live out in the middle of nowhere. We can also have a bonfire for our party because there is room unlike the city. If you were to build a fire in the city people would probably call it a riot. When you have a family get together out in the country you can have as many people as you want because we can have the get together outside and inside. Cause on thanksgiving and Christmas my family goes outside and plays football. You try doing that out in the city and you’re probably going to get hit by a car. Also if you’re in an apartment in the city you can only invite 10 to 15 people over at the maximum or it will be really crowed. What if you’re having people come over for the super bowl where is everyone going to sit you’ll have some people on the floor, some people on the couch, and  some people sitting on the table. Where would all the food go if you have people sitting on the table? It would probably end up in everyone’s lap then if you jump up cause of a touch down then the foods most likely going on someone’s head. When living in the city you can’t walk your dogs, you can’t hunt, and you can’t grow your own garden. Well you can walk your dogs but they have to be on leashes and you would have to pick up their business wherever they go and they can’t run free. Also where would you plant a garden if you wanted one I don’t think you can? How in the world would you hunt for deer, turkey, rabbit, squirrel, bird or anything else in the city? There’s no way the animals would even go to the city anyway. Plus if you shot a gun while you were in the city you would most likely go to jail because somebody might think you’re shooting at them. Why would you even shoot a gun in the city? When you out in the country you can let your dog roam free, shoot your gun whenever you would like and garden whenever the weather would be okay to garden. Have a great time with family, pets, and friends whenever you would like and have no issues along the way. In my option I think it is way better to live in the country then in the city. I do live in the country and have lived in the city. I love it so much better in the country because it’s so peaceful and quite. We have a family get together all the time and have never had an issue. When I lived in the city people where always telling us to be quite because our music was too loud so I love it in the country. Like I said it’s up to you to make your own option about this. Well this is why I picked living in the country rather than living in the city.

How effective an adaptation of the play Macbeth is the film ‘Macbeth on the Estate’?

Macbeth on the Estate is a modern adaptation of Macbeth. It is set on a modern, run-down housing estate in Birmingham. The major changes from the play are the setting and the characters. There are much fewer noble qualities about the people and places shown. Instead, the setting is very run-down and poor. The characters are also corrupt and indulgent. A lot of the blame for the bad things that happen in the play seems to be given to characters. For example, the possibility that the witches control Macbeth, and he is not in control is implied to be untrue by suggesting that the effects that seem to be supernatural are simply caused by drugs and the poor conditions. There are also some things done that cannot be done in a theatre, such as camerawork to direct the audience. I believe that the film is a reasonable good conversion of the play into a modern film. I believe that it managed to portray the meaning of the original in a modern way that is easy to understand for modern people, as well as making suggestions about the story. I like how every aspect of Shakespearean world was converted into something of the modern world, for example the castle being converted into a social club. What I don't like about it is the fact that the language wasn't changed from the original text. Although it is quite important to keep the film similar to the original, so as not to forget that it is the same play, I think it made the film too much like the original play. I believe that if the setting is changed, the modernisation should be completed by making the language more modern. The point of the film is, after all, to give a modern slant. The language is the most out-of-date part and the most difficult-to-understand part of the play, and I believe that modern language should have been included. I will answer the question of how the ideas have been modernised mainly by giving various examples and explanation of what has been shown in their modernisation. I will answer the question of how the beginning and ending of the play have been changed by describing both beginnings and endings, explaining the changes made and also by giving reasons for changes. I will discuss the change in theatricality by first describing the differences between what can be done in film compared with theatre, and then describing and explaining the particular changes. I will discuss the characters by giving a description of the general change in the characters, and why this is, and then by analysing the change in each character individually, with possible reasons for these changes. I will then discuss how and why the adaptation loses its social and historical meaning and adds a meaning of its own. Shakespeare plays are often modernised to make them more accessible to modern people. This is so that people now can understand the plays, and can understand the meanings behind the plays, because they have been put into a modern context that we can relate to. Some ideas are not actually just translated; they are completed changed, or some are added. For example, the idea of Macbeth being totally evil is changed. Because this modernisation is a film, which means that it has certain ways to direct the audience in a certain way, a select few of the ideas from the original play are translated. An example of these is the idea that Macduff is a complete hero. Although I do not like the fact that only a few ideas are translated, I believe that on the whole, the few that have been translated have been translated well. The beginning and ending of a play or film can be very important for the meaning behind it. Beginnings give the audience a place to start from, to understand the story. They introduce the story and characters, and give the producers a place to start the story from. Endings are useful to round off the story, and give the producers a place to end the story. They are also useful to round off the story for the audience, whether it is a resolved ending or a cliffhanger. The very beginning scene of the play involves the three witches discussing Macbeth. This gives and impression of them controlling the plot, and makes this scene seem like the original source of Macbeth's evil. The beginning of the film is very different to that of the play. Macduff says an invented dialogue, although the audience does not know who he is at the time. The beginning has a lot of subtle references to the setting and the meanings. Macduff recites the new speech on a large wasteland. When the camera first shows this setting, before Macduff enters the scene, there is nothing restricting the view, and the whole of the frame is used, including the very extremities, so there is no particular focus point. This makes suggestions about the idea of confusion and the lack of focus in the story. The fact that the camera fades in re-enforces this with a feeling of fog. This barren landscape could be a battlefield, possibly like one in the play, reflecting the war-like culture. The fact that we don't know what it is re-enforces the idea of confusion, and also the idea about the audience deciding themselves about the true meaning of the play. The shot of Macduff is very close to him, and he looks right into the camera. This gives the impression that he is talking directly to the audience. This and the fact that Macduff is in the very first scene, rather than the witches, give an impression that Macduff is controlling the whole story, instead of the supernatural. I believe that Macduff is used as part of the way that the director makes him a larger part of the story, to ask questions about his true character. There are many differences between a play and a film. The main one is that with a play, the audience can interact much more, and can decide the story for themselves. This mainly comes from lack of direction, and the ability to imagine elements of the story. One way in which this is done is by not directing the audience's view. In a film, because there is a camera, the audience's view can be directed onto a particular character or object. This means that the audience's view can also be sub-consciously directed towards a particular meaning to the film. In a play, on the other hand, the audience is free to look at whichever characters they wish, to watch their actions and reactions to other events. This adds an element of the audience being able to decide what really happens in the play, and being able to decide which ideas are true, as well as the director being able to direct the audience to parts which show their own feelings. Another way in which is this is achieved is the difference in how the setting is portrayed. A film can be shot in different locations, making the setting much more believable, and making it seem much more like the characters are in the place where they are supposed to be. One again, this allows the audience to be directed, and shown exactly what the director believes the setting is, leaving no room for imagining it. A play has a much less vivid, defined setting. It is demonstrated by symbolic references to the actual things, meaning that the audience has to imagine them more. This means that a film is better if the director wants to deliberately highlight a particular idea to the audience, and wants to tell them something that they believe in. A play is better for giving a more open story, in which the audience is independent, and decides what is true about the story. Although the setting and characters are updated in the film, the language is not. As I have already mentioned, personally, I do not believe that this is very effective, because I think that if some parts are modernised, all the parts should be, although it is quite important to keep the conversion similar to the original. Tension can be shown very well in film, by using particular camera angles or special effects. This means that the tension in the film is shown much better, which is good, but only some elements of tension are properly shown, because the director has chosen to use only certain ideas. Because of the differences between film and theatre, the audience can also be directed towards certain elements of tension. In film, visual images can be used very well, because it is a visual medium, by using special effects. I do not believe that visual effects are used to a great extent in Macbeth on the Estate. The images used are not particularly used much more than they would be in a play. I do not believe that the potential for visual effects is used fully. Instead, the film loses some of the quality of the language from the play, which is an oral medium, making the film a less effective adaptation. It may be true, though, that the director has chosen to do this because what she wants to tell us is done much more subtly by using changes in the characters and setting. The soliloquies in the film are not adapted from the play very much. No elements that are exclusive to film are used, such as visual effects, making the soliloquies very similar to the originals. This is again because the director only wanted to make subtle changes. The actor can change their character by showing different body language, for example facial expression, and can use different tones to change the meaning of what the character is saying. The way that an actor can change the character is subtle, by changing subtle things not mentioned in the script. The part can be changed in many different ways. Some of these are quite significant, such as changing the original lines, adding soliloquies and changing things that are described directly in the original script. Others are less significant, and only involve changing parts that are not directly expressed in the original script, for example set locations and body language for the actors to use to help slightly change the emotions and related things, which make up the characters. The main alteration to the characters was to make them seem corrupt and not noble, to put them and society partly to blame for everything. It is mainly the characters that are very noble in the play who are changed, to make them seem less so. The major of these is King Duncan. In the play, he was known as a good and much-loved king. In the film, although he is liked a lot by the main characters, he has lost his nobility and kingliness. Instead of his castle, he has a social club, and he is very indulgent. Although all of the characters drink and smoke, he does these to more extent, and he almost never seen without a pint of beer. As well as having un-noble habits, he is also quite a sleazy character. For example, he hassles Lady Macbeth and is unpleasant to some of his servants. He is the main element in the way that the new director shows the environment around Macbeth as being corrupt and his character is changed more extremely than the others, in this way, because he is seen as the figurehead of the nobility in the play, being the most noble. Duncan's son, Malcolm, seems to be changed to also reflect the corrupt environment, but not as much. As in the play, he does what his father does, and copies him, but this is different in the film. He joins in with the indulgence, but this could just be the result of the world around him. Like in the play, he is quite good-natured, and a good person. The director could have used this to make suggestions about young people, not just now, but always, compared to adults. I believe that the fact that she shows the young people joining in with what the adults are doing, implies that they copy what the people around them do, and they quickly become just like the rest of society. The fact that he is a good person, and is not like his father suggests that people are born good and not corrupt, though, and are not like their environment until it indoctrinates them, and it becomes normality to them. This is one of the suggestions that the director makes about society that is true about today and Shakespeare's day. Donaldbain rarely appears in the film, and he is only slightly changed, in the same way as Malcolm. Banquo is changed much in the same way as the other people around the royalty; he has also lost nobility and is part of the corrupt society. Fleance remains more or less the same as in the play, but he has more of an element of innocence. He is younger than he seems to be in the film, and he has a very close relationship with his father, relying on him heavily. He seems to be very distressed by the events in the story, and there is strange thing at the end of the film: he points his hand at the camera as if it is a gun, and fires. This could be to show that he has been indoctrinated by the corrupt society, and he is no longer fearful of firing a gun, and killing someone, because Macduff shot Macbeth. I think that he could symbolise the pure good in the story which struggles to survive in the terrible environment, and then in the end has to give up and be lost into the corruption. Macduff is changed the most in relation to the other characters. In the play, he is Scottish, like most of the other characters, meaning that his background does not make him stand out from the others. On the other hand, in the film, all of the other characters are changed into English people from Birmingham. He, on the contrary, is from the West Indies, and so stands out from the other characters due to his background. This is to make him more obviously a very significant character in the story. The director has done this because she wants to portray Macduff as more of a main character than in the film, and wants to ask us about whether or not he is really as heroic as he is shown as in the play. This was because the film explores the good and evil in all of the characters more than in the play. In the play, Macduff was very blatantly shown as a purely good character, though in the film, we are made to question ourselves about whether Macduff is really as honourable as he might seem. The director probably did this because she wanted to show that there can be evil in everyone, and no one is either pure good or pure evil. Making Macduff stand out more helps illuminate what she wanted to convey to the audience. Lady Macduff is one of the characters who has been changed relatively little: in the play, she is quite a good person, and does not have too much character that is shown; also in the film she has little character shown, other than her kindness and motherliness. Although she joins in with the corrupt society a bit, she only does to moderation, and seems quite innocent. I believe that this was because the director did not want to dilute her messages, and the characters that could not help her portray her messages and did not have much significance were kept quite bland, so as not to take away the focal point from the more important characters. The innocence may have slightly helped a suggestion of feminism. The three witches are changed a lot from the film: they have become three children. I believe that the director chose to do this to help her argument about the corrupt society; she implies that they may not really have any powers, and they just cause the characters to believe in the supernatural, and so carry out the predictions themselves. This implication can be valid to show that today's society is corrupt, and may have changed since Shakespeare's time, but it could also be used to disagree with Shakespeare, and accuse the supposed supernatural occurrences of his day on the general nature of people. Lady Macbeth is one of the few characters that have had less blame put on her than in the play for the events in the story. The audience is made to feel sympathy for her, unlike in the play, which is done in a number of ways, for example by inventing something about some lost child. The changes to her are all part of the general trend that the characters' personalities are diluted into being partially good and partially bad, to make everyone, and our society, to blame for the events. I believe that the director very strongly and effectively puts across this message, and makes Lady Macbeth seem more innocent very well. This also suggests a hint of feminism. There seems to be a hint of feminism in the conversion because the female characters are shown as much more innocent that the male characters, but it is not a very strong hint. Macbeth is also relieved of some blame. In the play, he was portrayed as a thoroughly evil man, and his evil deeds were blamed solely him or the witches controlling him. He is also part of the suggestion that society creates evil, and just does what he does because of his society. The characters are mainly changed to help put across the message that the director wants to give the audience about the story. She wants to imply certain things about the individual characters, but she also uses this to give a new impression about society. Although she wants to make implications about how today's society, and how it would change the situation in the story, she may also want to make implications about timeless aspects of society that have always existed, and possibly to disagree with Shakespeare about how society was then. Although Shakespeare made a great deal of suggestions about society, I think the new director has taken the story further, and made new ones, as well as making alterations and her own touches to the original ones. Although the film seems quite bland and without many of these meanings at first, and it is difficult for the audience to realise these subtle messages when first seen, I think that she has been very successful in showing us her personal feelings about the play and in making suggestions to us about society, as long as the audience can pick them up. Any modernisation of the play inevitably results in the loss of some of its social and historical significance. This is because to understand what is meant by the play, people would need to know what the world was like at the time, and what was happening. When a play is modernised, it stops being about that world, and is about the modern world. There are a lot of modern issues in the film. Some of these are similar to those found in the original play and are only modified, and some are completely new, and are just relevant to modern life. An example of one which is only modified is the violence. The film shows that violence still exists, but in compliance with the idea of there being no nobility, the fighting is changed into dishonourable gang warfare. The modernisation is equally as much about the original play and modern society. Most of the messages behind it concern both in different ways. The best example of an idea, which complies with both, is the idea of no nobility. It works to do with the modern world because it could imply that the nobility is lost, but it could also imply that it never existed, and the people in Shakespeare's time were just as bad as now. My argument is mainly about how the director has used lots of minor alterations to tell us of her opinion of the original story. I believe that she has used the modernisation to make it easier for modern people to understand, but also as a tool to suggest that what Macbeth does is not entirely the fault of the people who were seen as completely evil before. I think she was very successful in taking Shakespeare's meanings on further, and developing new, separate ideas, as well as some contrasting with him, for example, not showing the main characters as completely good or evil, which I believe adds a very good personal touch to it, and shows very subtly, yet effectively, her personal beliefs. The main ideas I believe she wanted to put across are: nobody is completely to blame; everyone has no evil and some good; a hint of feminism; the world of Shakespeare's time exists with us today; there could be other possibilities of why the events in Macbeth happened, that Shakespeare did not include. I think that the film can be appreciated on many different levels: as a simple modernisation for easy understanding, and also as a subtly constructed message about the personal feelings of one person, which can be enjoyed by the observant audience, and can also prompt us to think about what we think about the story, and to wonder what it is really about.