Question1: Both Chadwick Boseman and Viola Davis were nominated for Academy Awards for their performances in the film Ma Raineys Black Bottom as Best Actor and Best Actress respectively. Although Ma Rainey is the eponymous character it could be argued that Levee is the protagonist. Discuss whether the direction of the film by George C. Wolfe emphasizes one character over another as the carrier of the action and specifically how this might be done. Your responses should be brief 1.5 pages in length but detailed and thorough. Writing a successful critique means going beyond simply deciding whether the film adaptation was good or bad. Value judgments like it was great are impossible to support with any real evidence. Instead carefully consider the effectiveness of the film adaptation and how the creative choices made by the director actors and designers inform your understanding of the play. You may begin by simply asking yourself your general emotional response to the film (I loved it I only liked certain aspects of it I thought it would never end¦) but that is merely scratching the surface. Your task is to determine critically and then articulate intellectually why you believe the film succeeds or fails in its adaptation of the play you read. Justification of your opinions is key. There is no right or wrong response to a work of art. However if your perspective lacks justification your opinions will lack validity. Stating this film was effective because the acting was good will not suffice. Why was the acting good and what do you mean by good? Explain and use examples. Example: Incomplete: Among the cast performance styles varied. Meryl Streeps interpretation of Mother Courage also appeared inordinately funny. Complete: Among the cast performance styles varied; rather than fragmenting the production however this collage of techniques complemented the evocative and eclectic setting and highlighted the way that Kushners script spoke across specific historical moments. Meryl Streeps interpretation of Mother Courage also appeared inordinately funny thereby turning preconceived notions of the tragic character on their head and allowing the contemporary audience to see them play with fresh eyes. (Excerpt from Theatre Journal 7). The non-underlined portions merely state the authors observations. The underlined portions explain and justify why these observations matter. Use these general guidelines to inform your approach to writing your critiques. Each critique will have its own specific prompt. Question 2ï¼š This is an opportunity for you to ask questions and/or respond with your reaction to Mark OBrien & Cheryl Cohen Greenes story about sexual surrogacy. Alternately you can respond to the following prompts: In a society that demonizes and outlaws trading money for sex should sex surrogates for the disabled be perceived differently? Is their trade different? Is it therapy? And if so should it then be paid for by health insurance as physical or behavioral therapy would? Does the existence of sexual surrogates further stigmatize and/or pity disabled people? Does it play into the notion that disabled people cant have sex unless they pay for it? Or is this a useful therapy that allows disabled people an opportunity to learn and explore their own bodies and gain experience sexually that they can then utilize with a partner? Question 3ï¼šWatch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtCwyqD-Vp8 Where do you stand on disability devotees? Does it matter what the source of their fetish is (the look of an amputated limb versus watching someone vulnerable struggle)? Is it good that devotees find people with disabilities sexually attractive or are they preying on and dehumanizing them? Do they need to disclose their fetish if they are dating someone with a disability? What about people with disabilities who make money by serving devotees (through videos for example) “ are they encouraging and supporting a harmful activity or just smart businesspeople?