Critique of the play See how they run by Philip King Movie Review

Critique of the play See how they run by Philip King - Movie Review Example The play is not all about slapstick but also has great dialogues incorporated into it. Without the backing of the dialogues, slapstick alone could not have made an impact. And more importantly, the characters in the play are all well created. Each character is given importance and each character has it share in being stupid at one time and witty in another. This combination is what differentiates the play from being mediocre to a classic comedy. The actors have done a good job but it could have been even better. The actors could have been more innovative and induced specific character traits. The need here was to have crisp and quick dialogues. Even though the dialogues are good, setting up of the dialogues was little off. At some places in the play it the punch line becomes elongated. The punch line has to be quick in order to make a better impact. Actors should have made intelligent and intentional choices to differentiate their characters. Another important aspect that can be improved is the stage setup and the use of it by the artists. As the play includes outrageous situations, intelligent use of the stage is vital. At some places, it feels like the actors are moving around just to fill out space on the stage. This takes out the authenticity out of the play. â€Å"See how they run† is a fantastic and very funny play. But the overall success of a play not just depends on the script but also on the various other elements. Even though there were some places that can be improved, I completely enjoyed the play.

Religious Critiques about Gay Marriage Annotated Bibliography

Religious Critiques about Gay Marriage - Annotated Bibliography Example As such, the two articles offer good arguments on religious critiques on gay marriages. The first article for example analyses the Catholic’s viewpoint on the issue. The article develops systematic arguments that attempt to validate Catholic’s objection to gay marriages. The author outline a number of factors and reasons as proposed by the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The same is the case with the second article in which the author furthers the argument on religious objection to same sex marriages. The author provides reliable evidence, which include in text citations to validate his claims. He eventually makes a reliable conclusion by marrying his facts to his thoughts as he showed in the article’s thesis statement. Professor Daniel Maguire ventures into the discussion by defending same-sex marriages. He provides a history of same-sex unions explaining that both the society and the church had once accepted such unions. He further borrows immense citations from the Acts of the Apostles to justify his belief about same-sex unions. The professor attempts to discuss numerous reasons that various people have given in their objections to same-sex unions. After exhausting such reasons, he concludes by referring to the Bible, Christian’s holy book to validate his arguments. The professor maintains that homosexuality is not a sin but discriminating against homosexuals is a sin. He, therefore, calls on Christians to abhor from discriminating homosexuals and instead accept them. However, the article appears sensational with the author striving to justify his feelings and opinions about the topical issues. He does not seek any third party indulgence in order to develop a holistic view of the issue. The author analyses the sacred nature of marriages, an argument used in Australia by a number of lobbyists in the country to justify a government legislation