The Men Who Knew Two Much A Compairson of Hitchocks Classic Original an

The Men Who Knew Two untold A Compairson of Hitchocks Classic Original and Remake Many works of maneuver can be considered artifacts that hold volumes of information regarding the culture of the plurality that created them and the diachronic context in which they lived. Films atomic number 18 also treasures of culture, filled with clues and insights into the attitudes and perceptions of the people of the day. date documentary films obviously present a historical record of people and events, dramatic fictional movies can also reveal the same. Comparing the master(prenominal) characters in Hitchcocks 1934 The Man Who knew Too Much with their 1955 counterparts unveils many differences between American and English cultures, expectations of their women and the pre- and post-war world view. THE HEROES top The heroes, heroines and scoundrels portrayed in the two versions of the film were cadaverous quite differently. Lawrence (1934) was assertive and took have got of the situation, while McKenna (1955) seemed to let the situation control him. When Lawrence got the message from his wife ab fall out the cryptic none, he immediately ran into Louis means to get it. He used his resources and wit to get him through sticking situations, from standing up to the authority of Scotland Yard, to tangling with the dentist to the chair fight at the church. Lawrence even recruited Clive to do most of the dirty work such as getting a tooth pulled or being hyp nonized by the 7-fold ray. impertinent Lawrence, McKenna was largely ineffectual and kind of bumbling at times. It wasnt until the very repeal that he actually took any risk when he went to the hitmans box at Albert Hall and then when he tripped up Mr. Dreighton on the stairs. McKennas wife seemed the stronger and smarter unity throughout as she was suspicious of Louis in Marrakech and later figured out Ambrose Chapel was a place instead of aperson.THE VILLAINS top The portrayal of the baddie was different in both versions as well. In the first one, the villain was singularly personified in the form of abbot, but the second films villain was shared out by the Dreightons and the foreigner who wanted to become embassador. In contrast, the motive of Abbot was rather ambiguous and only referred to as the cause, while the assassination of the Ambassador in the color version was clearlya means for face-to-face advancement... ...and hugged. However, the role of women in 1995 America is a little bit 1934, a little bit 1955 and a lot of neither. The following generalizations are mediocre that Today in this society, women are expected to be sexy and smart,but not too much of either one. If a girl is very glamorous, she is not expected (or desired) by males to be smart, and women see her as hurting the sackful movement, perpetuating the object stereotype. Onthe other hand, a smart, assertive woman is very much viewed as being unfeminine and bitchy, especially in the workplace. Hillary Clinton personifies this dichotomy - she was applauded for abandoning the subservient First Lady role and at the same time criticized for overstepping her bounds. rarity Woman is perhaps the only cultural hero to solve this problem. She could be sexy and strong in her little Wonder Woman tackle and tiara, as well as loyal and subordinate in her furnish as Diana Prince. But she only succeeded by becoming two people. We legato have a long way to go.Bibliography1996 Chris Sheridan All views expressed are the opinions of the author. Feel free to link to this page. For educational and informational purposes only.