Book vs. Movie

          The book versus movie debate is one that has abounded through English classes.  Which came first?  Which was better?  Did the one that came second stick to the original story or did it expand to be better or worse?  These are some of the questions that define this debate.  In the case of the Tempest, the book or play is certainly better than the movie.  While the movie has a few talented actors, the huge leap to make Prospero a woman and call her Prospera, is too much of a change and detracts from some of the things Shakespeare was originally commenting on.  Usually when a movie makes a change from the book, it doesn't work out well for the movie and the Tempest is no exception.
          Prospero being a male character is important as it makes it more believeable that he is super protective of his daughter and also treats his daughter as a possession that should be hard to get for suitors.  Also, Prospero's controlling and powerful nature makes more since if he is male as society at the time told women to be submissive and to go about their daily lives of child rearing.  I appreciate the movie's attempt at being progressive, but in this case, it detracts from Shakespeare painting a picture of what he saw in society and letting people decide for themselves what to think.  I think that was one of Shakespeare's large motivations in writing the Tempest.  He had an incredibly large audience, saw issues in society and wanted to expose these issues to his audience.  As we have discussed in class, he never really seems to take a certain side in issues as he acts more to display them.  In the case of the movie, its changes serve to change what Shakespeare was displaying about society, which is not a good thing.