English essay ( Literary Analysis Essay )

I have an essay which has a lot of grammar issues ( Verb / verb tense , subject/ verb agreement, spelling, fragments, run on sentences, comma splice and In-text acknowledgements ) I need it by tomorrow at the same time. I need someone who can guarantee me an A. I also want you to play with the words but do not change the meaning or the idea. I prefer easy and simple words.

9973

3

9973

Mrs. Michael McMurray

ENGL 098-51

Summer 2013

“The Witness for the Prosecution”vs. Witness for the Prosecution: short story and film

Agatha Christie’s 1924 short story “The Witness for the Prosecution” talked about the mysterious story. A man who kills an old lady, and the lawyer tried to help the man. Christie’s narrative an old lady called Mrs. Emily French whom she trusts and loves Mr. Vole. Mr. vole kills Emily French, because of the money that she have. The police find out that he is the murder of Mrs. Emily French. Mr. Vole calls a lawyer. That lawyer is Mr. Mayheren. He calls him to help Mr. Vole in his case . The lawyer tries to help Mr. Vole, but there were a lot of difficulties. Also his wife tried to help him in her way to take him out of this miss. Finally, Mr. Vole went out of this case. A major theme of this short story is even the smart people can be fooled. The movie version of Agatha Christi’s popular short story Witness for the Prosecution was released in 1957, produced by Arthur Hornblow, directed by Mr. Wilder, and adapted for the screen by Billy Wilder and Harry Kurnitz. In this paper I will compare and contrast the manner in which one element has been adapted by the filmmakers; in addition, I will synthesis the opinion of tow film critics.

Overall, I think the way that Mr. Mayherne in the short story, and in the movie is basically different for many reasons. One of the differences between the short story and the movie is health. In the short story, Mr. Mayheren not sick, but in the movie he was sick and was in a coma. The second difference between the short story and the movie is his job, in the short story he is the solicitor in the court; certain type of cases, but in the movie he was in the barrister a person in the court. Thirdly, the short story and the movie talks about his marriage. In the short story Mr. Mayheren have a wife. On the other hand, in the movie he does not have a wife. Another difference between the short story and the move is the description. In the short story he was a small man;however, in the movie he was a fat man. Additionally to all of these differences the short story and the movie his name. In the short story his name is Mr. Mayheren; though in the movie his name is Sir Wilfred Robert. Lastly, the difference in the short story and the movie is his addictive. The reason behind his addictive in the short story he did not smoke cigars, but in the movie he is addicted smoking a lot. However, there are common things in both short story and in the movie for example, he cheated to Mr. Vole and his wife.

Reactions to the performance of Tyrone Power by two critics appear to be more different than similar. In his reviews in filmsondisc, Stuart J .Kobak “plays accused murderer Leonard Vole with a since of theatrical grandeur” (p.1, par.1). He is very good, plays it in a perfect way as if heis in the theater, he isoveracting. His job to persuade the jury; acting for them to be innocent and giving the honest face and behavior. He suggests that he did nothing wrong in his performance. He performs perfectly. In his review,in Edinburgh University Film Society, Matthew White says, “Tyrone Power is suitably solid as the accused” (p.1, par.1). By this statement White means that he was not good,nor bad. Apparently. At most, one might possibly see the two opinion about Power’s performance as positive, since White dose the world “good” and Kobak says he is “perfect” ;However, it would be inaccurate to say that both critics fell the deference about his acting. For White shows, he isnot good and not bad. Kobak thinks that his works is excellent. Clearly, the two responses to the acting of Tyrone Power in Witness for the Prosecution are more different than they are the same.

A major theme that I recognize from the movie is “even the smart people can be fooled” throughout the short story and the movie, Leonard and his wife fooled them all. Back to 2005, when I was a little child, I went to cell-phones store and I bought Nokia smart phone. It cost me approximately 40 Kuwaiti Dinar. The condition of the phonewas used for five months, and it barely worked. The phone had many scratches on it. Moreover, one day I went to my grandfather house. Briefly, my grandfather was a successful businessman. He had two shops, which are electrical shop and laundry shop. It might sounds hilarious, but the fact is he earns nearly six thousands Kuwaiti Dinar in a month.He came to me and asked if I want to sell my mobile. I shacked my head like I was saying yes. He offered me fifty Dinar. I agreed to what he offered me, and I instantly went to the Nokia repair shop and fixed all the scratches for four Dinars. Then I came back to his house and gave him my phone which was in a good quality. He gave me the money cash. After three days he figured it out that the cell phone which I sold to him is cheaper than what I actually sold to him. He told me you are the first one in my whole life to bamboozled me in business. Obviously, what happened to my grandfather is an extreme evidence of how smart people can be fooled, so my story supports the theme of the movie as what happened to me and my grandfather.