Paper Example on Throne of Blood: Literal Adaptive Elements of Literature, Drama, and Film

The Answer to Question One (a)

'Throne of Blood' can be viewed as literal adaptive elements of literature attached to drama and film. For instance, it transposes Shakespeare's plot of Macbeth and depicts medieval Scotland. When authors of set pieces decide to incorporate other people's creative ideas like in the case of 'Throne of Blood' then such attempts are viewed as literal adaption. However, 'Throne of Blood' qualifies also as a traditional adaptation due to its remote setting that gets traced to Medieval Scotland and feudal Japan. The context of any set piece is always attached to some tradition or culture or anything of a social construct like in the case of 'Throne of Blood.' Finally, one can still view 'Throne of Blood' as a radical adaptation due to episodes of intense transition aimed at achieving climax. Films generally develop in a strategic pattern aimed at showcasing how issues transform into climatic scenarios cable of generating actions to which 'Throne of Blood' is accustomed.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Answer to Question One (b)

Traditionally, 'Throne of Blood' is viewed as a cinematic translation of Shakespeare's Macbeth. For instance, it relays the cultural and aesthetic elements of Shakespeare's work that are entrenched in history. Kurosawa explores the century wars in medieval Japan through the Onin war in a fashion of traditional adaptation. The author of the 'Throne of Blood' is determined to showcase history by incorporating the events of feudal Japan and show how it relates to issues of the film. Kurosawa's film is chronologically selected with literary sources, which is typically literal adaptation. He showcases intense conflict in medieval Japan through the use of various references, which include; 'Ran,' 'The Hidden Fortress,' and 'Throne of Blood' in an elegant manner, which is only possible with literal adaptation. It is radical and dominated by scenes of deathly crescendos punctuated with instances of violence, which makes it a radical adaptation literary piece (Prince n.p).

The Answer to Question Two (a)

The first scene identified is when Moss ignored Wells' offer to put Chigurh off his trail. Carson Wells was an ex-lieutenant hired by the Matacumbe Petroleum group to eliminate Chigurh. Knowing Chigurh's cruel nature, Wells knew the danger Chigurh posed. He met Moss in his hotel room and tried to convince him to give up the game he was playing with Chigurh. Moss turned down Wells' offer. The second scene is when Moss paid a teenage girl to drive him to Texas instead of driving himself. Chigurh had threatened to kill Moss's wife if he did not return the money. Deciding to give up the chase, Moss checked out of his hotel room and went back to Texas.

The Answer to Question Two (b)

Moss' decision to ignore Wells' offer of help cost the lives of two people, Wells and Carla Jean. Chigurh tracked down Wells and killed him before taking his phone. Moss later changed his mind and decided to call Wells. Chigurh, who now had Wells' phone, threatened to kill Moss' wife. Chigurh carried right his threat to Carla's life. He showed up on the day of her grandmother's funeral, and true to his cruel nature, he tossed a coin to decide her fate. When Moss' wife called heads, he shot and killed her. If Moss had accepted Well's offer, his wife's life would have been spared. Moss's decision in the second scene cost the life of the girl who was driving him to Texas. She was caught in the crossfire when Carla eventually gave up Moss's location to Bell. The communication was being tapped by Acosta's men, who then broke into the motel rooms Moss had booked and killed Moss and the girl. If Moss had driven himself to Texas instead of seeking out the girl's driving services, an innocent life would not have been lost.

The Answer to Question Three (a)

A leader in any set-up is expected to act in a way that not only commands respect but also in a way that the population feels protected. The case of Macbeth and Taketori Washizu is no exception. It is expected that they have to be brave, powerful, ambitious, loyal, loving, and mindful of the problems of the people. We also expect that their beliefs must be those that are tied to the general interest of the people. Their views must, therefore, mirror hope and the overall good of the people they lead. In the case of Macbeth, he exists as a warrior hero. His fame comes about by the bravery and successes he showcased on the battlefield. He is equally ambitious, as noted through the soliloquies and asides. For Taketori Washizu, he is determined and brave, something which leads to his downfall. The duo, Macbeth and Taketori Washizu compare significantly because they are deemed as the best in their context before their evil ambitions but later suffer the consequences of their actions.

The Answer to Question Three (b)

Indeed, some of the trait attributes I chose in the first part of the question contradicts their actions after the murder of their respective king and Lord. A case in point is the trait of loyalty. A leader and soldier get expected to show loyalty to his people and king. However, Macbeth murdering the king and subsequently becoming the crowned King of Scotland showed that he was disloyal to the and not trustworthy, he continues to mistreat his people even after getting power. The same example also applies to Taketori Washizu; he was supposed to be loyal to the Lord. Still, together with the power-hungry wife, he tried to fulfill a prophecy of occupying the emperor's seat. The ambitious plan proved his disloyalty and led to his unfortunate death.

The Answer to Question Four (a)

Scene one: tossing his coin every time, scene two, killing the gas owner, scene three: killing Moss and his wife. Chigurh flips a coin to conclude what his victims would face. Chigurh was a hitman whose conscience was dead. The motive of flipping the coins is to decide what his victims will endure. When the owner of the gas station does wrong by recognizing Chigurh, he tosses a coin to conclude what to do to the owner of the gas station. He eventually kills the gas station owner after he lets the coin decide. Chigurh's handlers trusted him with a suitcase which he did. The motive was to show his handler that he was not interested in the money but rather to reestablish balance. When he kills Moss since he knew he would not give back the money, he kills him as a punishment, which causes an imbalance as Moss's wife is still alive. As a result, he kills Moss's wife to bring balance back into existence.

The Answer to Question Four (b)

The events help in understanding the kind of man that Chigurh is, a killer with no beliefs or morals. The scenes describe how Chigurh did not believe in anything; he was not loyal to anyone or anything, and had no purpose but to cause destruction. In the scenes, Chigurh is driven by the urge for destruction, hence lets his coin to decide whether to destroy or not. Also, he had no call for natural materials and no values or morality, which made him a ruthless killer. According to his character, people should not believe in anything because there is not a thing that can be spoken about or known. The world has become chaotic with violence and death; therefore, the only way to live is to believe in nothing. The flipping of the coin shows that Chigurh felt in free will as he let the coin "call it."