How could a theater director most effectively change a Shakespeare play to make it more familiar to a modern American audience?

English

2 answers:

Leto [7]2 years ago

7 0

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

A theater director most effectively changes a Shakespeare play to make it more familiar to a modern American audience by changing the context of the play to adapt it to modern circumstances for the new generations can identify easily with the adaptation of characters that young people can relate to.

If the theater director can adapt the dates, the characters, the circumstance to modern events, people would be very interested in attending the plays. Maybe musicals, why not?

olga2289 [7]2 years ago

5 0

They can change the background or the set up of the play to change the mood

You might be interested in

Which of the following can count as evidence in an argument? (Check all that apply)

RoseWind [281]

The following can count as evidence in an argument;

Facts
Judgement; and
Testimony.

<h3>What is evidence?</h3>

Evidence in law simply means anything (tangible or intangible) that can be used to support a claim.

Hence, any of the following will count as evidence in an argument:

Facts
Judgement; and
Testimony.

Learn more about evidence at;
brainly.com/question/23323608
#SPJ1

4 0

1 year ago

In saying, "not to strive after a life of ignoble ease, but to strive to do their duty," Roosevelt uses:

zvonat [6]

its is a metaphor

because it is more active

4 0

3 years ago

Briefly explain the differences between Julie's and Warren's approach in responding to

Tcecarenko [31]

Julie's approach was aimed at showing her positive points about the profession and the way she works. Warren's approach, on the other hand, was to show his strengths and the weaknesses of his competitors.

Although you didn't show the context of your question, it was possible to find a question similar to yours, which showed an exchange of emails between the partners of a law firm, where different partners were interested in working on a specific case. You can see all the emails and the question context in the attached screenshots.

When we read all the emails, we can see that:

A famous singer being accused and looks for lawyers who can serve him.
Three lawyers are interested in the case and send emails to the director of the company, showing why they should be chosen.
Julie, one of the lawyers, shows that she is very interested in the case and that she is a very focused person, that she believes in the client's innocence, and that she has many professional characteristics that are favorable to this case.
She doesn't say anything about the other lawyers who have an interest in the case.
Warren, another lawyer interested in the case, takes a different approach. In addition to showing his professional points, he shows what are the negative points of his competitors.
Furthermore, Warren states that he would like to work on this case, even if he is not chosen to lead the team of lawyers.

With this, we can see that Julie, focused only on the skills she has, while Warren focused on the skills he has and the disadvantages of other candidates.

More information:

brainly.com/question/17343927?referrer=searchResults