Obviously, there are some main characters in the movie that are representing characters in the play. Phillip is Prospero and Miranda is Miranda. I found it interesting that the director/writer kept Miranda's name constant, but changed Prospero to Phillip. This goes back to our discussions about the importance of naming in Mama Day. I think that Freddy and Miranda's relationship is not focused on as much in the movie as it is in the play. In the play, much of Prospero's actions are driven by the relationship forming between Miranda and Ferdinand. But in the movie, their relationship is barely given any attention. I think the plot in the movie doesn't really follow closely to the play. The tempest is not a direct result of something Phillip called for. The film tries to portray Phillip conjuring up the storm, but he didn't have a spirit that was causing the storm, based on an order- like Prospero had Ariel do. I think the film reflects Mazursky's perspective on contemporary American life in a way that does not focus much on magic. Naylor includes magical realism in her portrayal of the play, but Mazursky focuses more on reality and things that can actually happen. He puts the play in context of the world of the 1980s. The music, clothing and business of the eighties is accurately portrayed. Naylor also puts the play in context of a southern island, but there are definitely more magical and spiritual themes that are kept alive in her version. I think Mazursky wants the focus to be more on Phillip's personal conflicts and journey, rather than the magic. The play focuses on the trajectory of Prospero's growth as an individual and father, while the film doesn't really show his growth. He seems very stagnant in the film. The end of the film shows him somewhat forgiving those who hurt him, but we don't get much sense of how he actually comes to terms with it all. I think the film lost a lot of his personal journey through trying to focus on the entertainment factor of the film.