Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 10:32:03 am

Author Topic: Literature Essay Compilation Thread  (Read 77354 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ieatcrayons

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +17
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2011, 05:55:16 pm »
+1
Veiws and Values - David Malouf's 12 Edmonstone street
“The old man...Whose temperament, or aristocratic pride, or lack of English or contempt for the conventions of the place, made it impossible for him to take employment, but who saw nothing shameful in having his wife drudge sixteen hours a day...”
Malouf carefully presents observations and reflections on his past that aim to convey the dominant beliefs and attitudes of societies and how these influence individuals. He refrains from questioning or challenging societal norms or individual actions because of them, rather he presents a neutral retelling of events. Do you agree?


In 12 Edmondstone Street Malouf presents an objective view upon societal beliefs and attitudes through observations and reflections upon his past. Readers from Malouf’s own generation would perhaps have more of an appreciation for these observations and reflections as they may share some of his experiences. Some of the beliefs and attitudes he explores include social structure, gender roles and religious customs and beliefs. Regardless of his neutral narration Malouf also cleverly expresses his personal views and values throughout the novel.

A major influence upon society in Malouf’s time, particularly Australian society, was the importance of social structure and conventions.  He describes the Front Room in the house and how it is symbolic of “a warning, richly put, against easy pleasures and the dangers of ‘the social life”  and he also uses the symbol of the dirty, unmarried, smoking pregnant woman to personify many of the things 1940’s Australian society considered socially unacceptable.  This use of symbolism conveys to the reader what the social conventions of the time were through indirect means, therefore showing them what the social conventions were in a neutral and un-opinionated manner.
   
Another of the societal norms that 12 Edmondstone Street explores is gender roles and their effect on people. Malouf shows these gender roles through the use of metaphor, by displaying the upper part of the house, where the cooking, cleaning and washing is done  as the woman’s domain and the under house where the men do their physical work etc are kept as the men’s domain. This is explored not only in Australian society but in Italian as well.  Malouf observes “The kitchen in these houses is the women’s room; men, if they are not eating are expected to in the felids or at the bar.  These rigid gender roles of and common perceptions of male dominance and female passiveness are purely explored in the novel.  There is no implied judgement, no obvious expression of frustration from the women at this patriarchal society, Malouf portrays it as nothing more than a socially accepted convention of the time.

Malouf’s novel also conveys the influence of religious custom and beliefs upon both eastern and western societies. In 12 Edmondstone Street , one sees the strict following religious customs had in 1940’s Brisbane, particularly when the novel speaks of the domineering presence of David’s grandmother and how “[his] mother h ad lost several good housekeepers” through their failure to submit to the “rudiments of the faith”. This portrayal of the way in which society and religion interact has changed enormously in contemporary Australia, where people have become much less devotional. The novel also shows a little of the religious customs of Hinduism when Malouf speaks of how “cows freely roam the streets”. The fact that Malouf details the religious customs of two almost opposing faiths shows his objectivity in the novel.

Malouf’s style of objective narration in regards to the social norms of his time certainly doesn’t mean that the novel conveys none of his own personal beliefs, attitudes and opinions. There a brief moments throughout the text in which the author addresses to the reader his opinion in an abundantly clear manner. One of the views Malouf endorses in the novel is the importance of the journey as opposed to the destination. This is shown in the chapter where he describes the filming he does in the Italian village. Although the entire chapter is dedicated to the filming, the reader never discovers anything of the outcome of it. The intense imagery, in particularly the descriptive language utilised in the encourages the reader to feel as though they themself are experiencing the journey alongside Malouf. The novel also shows how Malouf criticises the consumer oriented, capitalist nature of contemporary Australian society when it discusses how India’s economy is more ‘real’: “The real economy which is going on about us and consists of millions of hands engaged in the simplest tasks”, and therefore how India is further off from the” distant, inconceivable end.” Malouf’ objective nature of showing the attitudes and beliefs of his society does not limit him from expressing his personal views throughout the novel.

In 12 Edmondstone street Malouf conveys the values and beliefs of three societies; 20th century Brisbane, India and Italy. He objectively conveys to the reader the beliefs and attitudes of the time without questioning or challenging views, however this does not limit him from expressing his personal views and values throughout the novel.
2010/11 VCE: All three Englishes, Psychology, Further, Revolutions.
2012-15: Bachelor of Arts at UoM.

ieatcrayons

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +17
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2011, 10:23:27 pm »
+1
Alternative viewpoints - "Water" directed by Deepa Mehta

Water is a film about conflict; primarily the conflict of conscience and faith. Set in 1938, a time of great social and political change for India, with the rise of Ghandi and his followers and their desire for freedom from colonial rule, Mehta’s film features the plight of a group of outcast Hindu widows and the injustice they suffer. Leigh Singer’s ultimately positive review of Water for Channel 4 Brittan, addresses this major concern:

Singer addresses the symbol of water as a key aspect of the film; however she does not consider some of its associated concepts. She refers to water as a “powerful symbol throughout” the film, and speaks of the importance of the Gangees river to the widows lives, and how “drops of rain first bring Narayan and Kalyani into contact.” While these are valid and significant points Singer overlooks water representing purity, primarily shown in the film through the people cleansing themselves in the river, and the involvement of holy water in many of the widow’s religious rituals. Singer’s review addresses the importance of water as a symbol in the film, however she overlooks it’s representation of purity.

The reviewer comments on the films visual elements; however she hardly does justice to its exquisite nature. She mentions the “stunning backdrops” and “elegant hues” featured in the film, without further analysis into the vast size and intimate detail we see in the sets, or the use of contrasting colours between the blue and green hues of the film, reflecting the sinister nature of the reality in which the widows live juxtaposed with the similarly symbolic presence of the colour white- the white saris the widows use, which is representative of their purity. The film also features beautiful cinematography; the scene where the mischievous Chuyia bites Madudidi, and is consequently chased about the ashram features delightfully effective use of a handheld camera, and the scene in which Narayan and his friend discuss Narayan’s belief in Ghandi’s ideals is wide, and having so much of the men’s surroundings in the frame represents the canvas of social change which they are discussing. Whilst Singer touches on the visual elements of the film, her review does not adequately characterise their depth.

Singer also focuses primarily on the plight of the widows, omitting some of the film’s other key concepts. The majority of the review is concerned with the “harsh treatment of widows”, providing the reader with contextual information about hard the lives women face in ashrams without reference to the concept of faith, and the religious traditions which are the reasoning behind it. This lack of distinction between the suffering of Indian women and the suffering of Hindu Women perhaps demonstrates that the reviewer has overlooked the importance of the idea of religion and its variable interpretations to the film. The reviewer also refrains from discussing the key concept of the social fabric of India; the caste system and the change they were experiencing. The reverence with which they hold the caste system is shown through the interactions of all of the characters, Shakuntala is the only widow who can read because as a Brahmin she received education, and according to Nayran’s father “Brahmins can sleep with whomever they want”. The film also features much of the social change taking place in India and the pimp character, Gulabi, represents the voice of the outside world for the widows- and consequently the viewers- bringing them news of Ghandi’s progress, and other changes in their social climate. The review also subtly hints towards a slightly feminist reading of the text with her focus upon the “powerless, disenfranchised women” and the “patriarchal domination” shown in the film, and referring to it as a “plea for progressive thinking ... applicable well outside the confines of India.” This could perhaps explain her focus upon the injustice the widows must suffer above the other key concepts of the film. Whilst Singer’s focus in the review is the primary major concern of the film – the lives of the widows- she overlooks other significant key ideas which the film features.

The reviewer insinuates that Kalyani and Nayran’s characters are “more mouthpieces than flesh-and-blood individuals”, clearly overlooking the some of the complexities in the portrayal of their on screen relationship. Kalyani and Narayan’s relationship is characterised by the many silences between them- what they avoid saying in order to mean what they intend to say- and the beauty of their wordless communication. This aspect of their characterisation is predominantly shown in the scene in which Narayan first sees Kalyani with her head shaved and understands the situation without explanations or exclamations. The reviewer’s view of Kalyani and Narayan’s character’s show that she has not considered the true depth and complexity of their relationship.
2010/11 VCE: All three Englishes, Psychology, Further, Revolutions.
2012-15: Bachelor of Arts at UoM.

scared_of_hippies

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2011, 10:09:03 pm »
+1
Seems like no one else is doing Frankenstein? Haha, how odd.
Here is my essay, it's pretty okay. I hope anyway. Also, this isn't based on any actual passages, just a practice essay we did for prelimenary marking.
And yeah, there is some really weird wording and unnecessecary words.

Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is a literary classic. Written in the 17th century, it has been widely adapted to many different forms. One such form is the film “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, directed by Kenneth Branagh. The strength of Shelley’s novel is the pathos, the emotional strength, of her writing. This pathos becomes bathos within the confines of Branagh’s “Frankenstein”. This is visible when comparing the two. The birth of the monster is a scene which is powerfully imbued with pathos in the novel, while in the film; it is an emotional weakness, lacking any depth or emotional substance. This shift from pathos to bathos is then further seen within the confrontation on Mt. Blanc. Shelley creates a powerful and emotional scene, while Branagh’s is ridiculous. Thirdly, the death of Elizabeth is a scene focused on by both Shelley and Branagh. Branagh’s scene lapses into bathos with Elizabeth’s fiery death and re-birth. In contrast Shelley’s is a potent scene which propels Frankenstein onto his quest for revenge and role as a hunter.

Frankenstein’s creation of the monster is an important scene. Shelley glosses over the science, with one paragraph sufficing to explain the creation. This is vital as Shelley quickly moves onto the philosophy of the creation of life and the emotional response felt by Frankenstein at the moment of birth, as well as the “catastrophe” that Frankenstein feels he has created. Frankenstein describes the “dull yellow eye” and the “convulsive motion” of the monster. These descriptions create an ambiguity that allows the reader to create their own vision of the monster, allowing Shelley to fit the image of the monster to the readers most secret fears. This is a strong example of Shelley’s ability to create pathos, that of a sympathy for the monsters immediate rejection by its creator. Not unlike
Adams rejection by God in Genesis. In contrast, the films creation is one of bathos. This is due to Branagh’s failed attempt to re-create the pathos of the novel.  Branagh focuses on the science of the creation, with an extended scene of the birth of the monster, along with an almost detailed explanation of the process involved. Branagh emphasises the science due to the audience of the film. Released in 1994, Branagh's audience is a scientifically literate one. This emphasis of the science creates an emotional weakness, by focusing to solely on the creation, and not enough on the emotional aftermath. Furthermore, by depicting the monster, Branagh loses out on the power of ambiguity, the power that allows the monster to frighten readers with their personal nightmare of the monster.  The weakness of the film is then exaggerated further by the instantaneous and ridiculous creation of a lynch mob to attack the monster. The emphasis by Branagh on the science behind the creation of the monster, in stark contrast to Shelley’s glossing over of the science and the focus on the emotional response, shows that the pathos of Shelley’s novel, became the bathos of the Branagh’s film.

The climactic confrontation between the monster and Frankenstein on Mt Blanc is suffused with pathos within the novel, and bathos within the film. Shelley creates a tense and potent moment between creator and “creature”, between monster and Frankenstein, on Mt Blanc. This moment is the climax of the novel, as it is the moment wherein creator and created meet in the power of the sublime. The sublime allows Shelley to create an equality between the monster and Frankenstein, as Shelley so fervently believes the force of nature can mean “destruction upon the head of the speaker”, any speaker who decides to speak out in a “voice” too “loud” against nature. Shelley even refers to nature as an “imperial” power. This is Shelley’s way of saying that nature is the ruler, the emperor of the world, and that people are the peasants to be ruled over. This dwarfing of the trivial nature of Frankenstein and the monsters problems within the confines of the sublime creates a sense an emotional strength that allows the reader to empathise with the monster, and create a sense of pathos that is sustained throughout the text. In contrast, Branagh turns Shelley’s most emotive scene into a scene of bathos. Branagh has the confrontation taken from the immense power of Mt Blanc and the sublime, into an ice cave where Frankenstein and the monster meet, but not as the equals that Shelley intends them to be. Branagh gives the monster the upper hand, making it intrinsically clear the reversal of roles, from master and slave, Frankenstein and monster, to slave and master. Furthermore, Branagh’s removal of the sublime and the addition of the monsters innate abilities shifts the film further into bathos. The monster remembers how to play the flute, in an effort by Branagh to create pathos, but it merely emphasis the vital loss of pathos in when compared to the novel. The scene on Mt Blanc is a poignant and emotive scene, written by Shelley to be held in the hands of the power of the sublime, yet Branagh shifts this into bathos by both removing the sublime, and turning an emotive scene ridiculous.

Both Shelley and Branagh focus heavily on the death of Elizabeth. In the novel, Shelley focuses on the distraught emotional response of Frankenstein, which creates pathos within the novel. A long with the idea that it the death of Elizabeth that finally pushes Frankenstein into action against the monster. Frankenstein is held by the “agony of despair” when the death is discovered. Despite his best efforts to defend his wife, it is Frankenstein’s rejection of the monster that results in the same rejection being felt by Frankenstein, which is that there is no one to love or be loved by. Like Shelley’s creation of the monster, she does not dwell on the actual death. She quickly skips to the response of Frankenstein, and his almost immediate “resolve” for action. This furthers the Shelley’s creation of pathos. Branagh on the other hand, uses the death of Elizabeth has the emotional climax of the film which ultimately results in bathos. The murder of Elizabeth fuels Frankenstein to recreate her. It is a hypocrisy of Frankenstein, that he would create a second monster to assuage his pain and suffering but would not do it for his monster. Furthermore, Branagh uses the rebirth of Elizabeth to explain what is felt by the monster and Elizabeth. Branagh manages to create a sense of pathos here. He shows that it is not actually the process of rebirth that fuels the monsters hatred of himself, but rather the realisation by Elizabeth of her horrific physical appearance that leads to her second death. Yet Branagh lapses back into Bathos by exaggerating the death of Elizabeth. Elizabeth becomes so distraught with herself that she sets herself alight, and flees screaming down a corridor that is bursting into fire. This intense exaggeration removes the scene of any and all emotional strength and poignancy, and instead becomes a ridiculous effort by Branagh to prove himself as a director and reference the power of fire as a cleansing of the spirit. Shelley achieves a level of pathos by showing the reader Frankenstein’s need for revenge, while Branagh’s interpretation of the scene quickly dissolves into a bathetic and ridiculous scene.

Mary Shelley creates a strong sense of pathos throughout the novel. In comparison Branagh’s film lapses into bathos. The creation of the monster is focused on by both Branagh and Shelley, yet only Shelley achieves an emotional strength, while Branagh is lacking any emotional depth what so ever. Mt Blanc is the climax of Shelley’s novel, yet is merely a stepping stone for Branagh. Lastly, the death of Elizabeth is focused on heavily by Branagh as the climax of the book, while Shelley uses it to propel Frankenstein’s need for revenge.

izzykose

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 146
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2011, 10:16:46 pm »
0
endorsed above post, guys a genious.
2011:

Psychology [45], Legal Studies [42], English [43], History Revolutions [34], International Studies [33 :(]

2011 ATAR- 93.80

VivaTequila

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Respect: +131
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2011, 09:07:30 am »
+3
Jesus christ, I really can't write. If this is what I'm up against, I'm seriously boned for lit...

VivaTequila

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Respect: +131
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2011, 07:53:55 pm »
+1
Think I'll contribute, even though I pale in comparison with your divine work.

1. My Review of Two Brothers
2. My Review of Alison Croggon's review (Theatre Notes)
3. My Review of Tom Hyland's review (Drowning in Propaganda)

1.

A Review of Hannie Raysons ‘Two Brothers’

Her play serves its purpose. That is all.

Despite how feted the play has been by Rayson’s comradely queens of controversy, the play stands alone in its unfailing, underwhelming mediocrity.

Venomous criticism? Please. The aversion from such commentary delineating the play as ‘guaranteed to stir and provoke, as good drama should’ (The Age) is just. ‘Two Brothers’, stirring and provoking? Sadly. Good drama? Debatable.

Good dramas are timeless. ‘Two Brothers’ is centred on a singular event in history, in which an odd three hundred and fifty three people drowned because of political short comings. So explain why ‘Two Brothers’ has been warped and contorted into a controversial issue in its own right, when we have such political tensions as occur in the Middle East, daily. Hundreds are brought to the slaughter, and there is undoubtedly media coverage on the issues. But the scale of enthusiasm and support for Hannie Rayson’s sad trash is alarming considering the nature of the global problems that we face today. If people turn their heads from such problems as HIV/AIDS, civil unrest and violent demonstrations, human rights abuses, and the likes, then why do we lick Rayson’s shoes?

The widespread acclaim has made the play bigger than the issue itself, but how?

Maybe it was the wit and the naturalistic expertise of Rayson in fabricating a complex, diverse range of characters with whom the reader is to build a rapport.  Or maybe not, for if we look at the characters, we would find that Eggs and Tom Benedict leave – in full meaning – nothing to the imagination. You have the brothers across the two sides of the political divide; Tom and Eggs Benedict. Tom is the embodiment of the stereotypical left; a human rights advocator who has produced narcissistic hippie of a son, as a product of his entwinement with a woman who teaches a class of Abdulla’s and Chong’s. On the flip side, you would never guess that Eggs is the conservative rightist whose constant mocking of the leftist rhetoric and elitism is the antagonist of the play. Don’t even get me started on the naming scheme used for Jamie ‘Savage’. The play is just too forceful; the stereotypes have been taken to the max.

So if it wasn’t the characters, maybe it was an insightful twist to the plot of SIEV-X?

No, instead we get a one-sided interpretation of the events of SIEV-X. The climax of the play is a simple decision, faced by Lachlan (the son of... how did you guess?). If ‘dense moral territory’ encapsulates a decision on whether murder is right or not, then what has this culture come to? Isn’t it ironic that the biased interpretation that has been made by Rayson has contributed to the world viewing the Leftists as biased and near-sighted? (Thankfully, plays are appropriately classified as fictional)

No plot twist, directly borrowed and stereotyped characters, so now what? What could possibly have caused the play to receive such outright national acclaim as a piece of political prose?

Rayson shames the rhetoric of the left in her desperate attempt deliver her political message. So forceful was its delivery (believe me, Rayson, the play was loud and clear), that the military became enraged at the funding going towards such sightless garbage, and talk began about abolishing the Australia Council (the government’s arts funding body). Thankfully, John Howard cooled the situation and Rod Kemp let the council off with the warning ‘why do you insist on biting the hand that feed?’... A stellar question.

I for one would have hated to see the abolishment of the Australia Council, and even more so because an overreaction to such simple material as ‘Two Brothers’. I recognize the importance of plays that advocate Left-wing material and opinions, or else we end up in a controlled state of limited speech. This is why I find it saddening that Rayson has connoted our views with such polarity to the Right. It’s frankly no wonder they mock our rhetoric if such shallow material is being published and hailed for what is actually a tragic embodiment of our values.

Rayson wanted to deliver a political message, and deliver it forcefully at that. As if the sinking of the Kelepasan, the survival of Hazem and his story, the involvement of the military, government, and a conspiracy theory don’t allude directly to SIEV-X. Or am I mistaken in my interpretation, and it was actually referencing something else?

Then why did Rayson have to include introductory material before patrons were to view the play?

Bravissimo, Rayson.

There’s no doubt that the issue will follow the play in fading into the unspoken depths of political embarrassments.

So don’t expect anything more than a slow hand clap from me after wasting a day of my life reading this sloppy, palustral interpretation of the events of SIEV-X.

2.

Two Brothers; Critiquing the critique
Alison Croggon
Theatre Notes

Hannie Rayson’s political play Two Brothers has attracted a significant amount of attention over its blurry, hyperbolic message. Alison Croggon has presented a review of the play after seeing it in person, attributing the main cause of the debate and kerfuffle towards the teeming ambiguity in the play’s political messages. Bolt, of course, scrapes a mention in Alison’s lateral and logical evaluation of the play’s intrinsic worth, as she opines that he has missed the boat in his analysis of (what he calls) Rayson’s ‘smug vomit of hate’.

Croggon opens her review by critiquing Bolt’s reaction to his amusing mention in Rayson’s play, where he is referred to as ‘Andrew Blott’. She undermines his responses as they were diatribe, figuring that he was ‘frothing with self-righteousness’ when he savagely attacked Rayson’s play. She promptly goes on to further ridicule Bolt by analysing his tirades as he slammed her for the ‘gobs of government gold’ she ‘smacked’ up as an artist. All of this is with a reason of course; she gets to her point at long last by explaining that she raises the antics of Bolt in order to illustrate the difficulties with Two Brothers.

She rightly believes that the play is ‘morally, politically, and aesthetically confused’, as a direct result of ‘its thin fictionalising of actual people and events’, hence why Bolt mistook his moment of mention. The plot is garbage and the characters trash to match.

The Benedict Brothers have been openly based off the Costello brothers, and Croggon has rightly demonstrated that the ‘fictional characters bear little resemblance to the Costellos themselves.’ Croggon then follows up by calling the play a ‘family drama’. She believes the national politics are secondary to the family drama; Croggon says they are ‘thrown in’ in order to vamp up the ‘psychic static’.

The comment is debatable, for the play is distinctly political, and it is so with intent for Rayson in fact produced introductory material to the audience before screening the play with the MTC. Even neglecting this, the national politics are simply omnipresent in the script; the plot revolves around the sinking of the SIEV-X (which Croggon classifies as ‘suspicious’ rather than addressing as the  central plot), the ideas and embodiment of the right and left side of politics in her characters, it even stems down to the language that Rayson’s fictional character’s use. If there is much of a family drama in there, it is given nowhere near the leeway that Rayson assigned for her political messages.

However, Croggon is right on the mark in pinpointing the reason Bolt demonstrates ‘his usual uncertain grasp... between fact and fiction’.

In summarising the play’s plot, she undercuts the theatrical techniques used by picking on the most clichéd aspects of the play, most notably Lachlan being in an argument with his father, (who happens to be) running for PM, on the (subtly allusive) topic of the survival of hundreds of asylum seekers on (of course) Christmas Day. This is, however, fair criticism, for the play distinctly lacks artistic credibility.

Croggon’s language in this segment is notably satirical as she sardonically uses phrases such as ‘extraordinary coincidence’ to illustrate the unbelievable extremities of the plot. She employs comic relief, calling Jamie Savage a ‘ball-tearing femocrat’. She finally rests upon the statement ‘well, you can probably guess the rest’ after ranting about the plot’s fabrication in a delightful and fair manner.

Croggon then proceeds to focus on the characterisation of Eggs specifically, and how Rayson’s political manifesto comes to be dealt with in Two Brothers. Through the use of extreme hyperbole, she highlights and accentuates the sheer monstrosity that Eggs Benedict really is, summarised; ‘a liar and a power junkie driven by naked greed’. However, the criticism is just, for her observations are true to the text and it was likely the intent of Rayson to create Eggs this way. Croggon moves into unmapped territory as she shows the seemingly unintended effect of having the political messages coming from this boisterous character; ‘Rather than making government culpability clearer, this act muddies it altogether with a wholly inappropriate melodrama’.

This is a fair criticism, simply because everything seen so far of the play is either too close to the truth or far too far from it. The sinking of SIEV-X is obviously omnipresent, and the play is undebatably linked to the political antics from both the Left and Right. On the flip side, the characterisation of Egg’s confuses what would be a very literal interpretation of real events; if everything is so close to the truth then why, as Croggon puts it, ‘confuse the issue’ with the character of Eggs?

Croggon appears unconcerned with the political arguments themselves; she distances themselves from them and rather determines the strengths of the play in delivering these messages in their own right. She shows how the plot and characters are less than feasible whilst evaluating how the messages that Rayson tries to bring forth with these characters compares with those messages of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. She explains the techniques that Miller used to make his point, involving the use of going back in history to draw parallels to modern society. She similarly analyses a ‘current model of theatrical protest’; the tribunal theatre. In doing so, she exposes Rayson’s work to be some chalked up fiction, deeming it weightless compared to other techniques that have been used to illustrate points concerning recent events.

Croggon has proven wise in distancing herself from the political drama unfolding with the issue, and instead of analysing the political message of the play (which many other short sighted reviewers have solely taken from Rayson’s work), she analyses its delivery. All of her criticisms are on just terms, and her review exposes some aspects of Rayson’s play which would do well with being tightened.

3.

Two Brothers; Critiquing the critique
Tom Hyland
The Age

In a controversial issue revolving around the treatment of asylum seekers by the Australian Government, Tom Hyland has presented a critique of Hannie Rayson’s “political thriller” Two Brothers. Hyland’s review deals specifically with the political message that Rayson has raised in her play; the welfare of asylum seekers. Two Brothers is - without a doubt - distinctly political; the two brothers are Tom and ‘Eggs’ Benedict, the bleeding heart lawyer/human rights activist and the greedy, power driven prime-minister to be. The politics here is obvious; there’s the Left and Right on the opposite sides of the political divide and their respective characters have been based off the Costello brothers.

Hyland accuses Rayson of creating a play that acts as a ‘conspiracy theory’, for it contains elements that are far from the truth. He opens his article by trying to show how the play ‘deals in stereotypes’, ‘preaches to the converted’, and ‘panders to prejudice’. This is fair enough, because it’s true, Two Brothers does all that. However, its worth as a means of criticism is questionable for most plays need to be simple in order for the audience to grasp the underlying meanings; hence Rayson (like virtually every other playwright out there) has employed the use of stereotypes. As well as this, plays commonly preach to the converted; I wouldn’t watch a play which is topical on an issue which I do not follow.

In his assessment of the play, he does profess that it is a ‘compelling, provocative, entertaining and dramatic thriller’. However, Hyland quickly establishes that it can’t be assessed as a piece of fiction despite the marginal fabrication of the plot and characters because it ‘purports to more than [fiction]’. He extrapolates by rambunctiously generalising the audience, saying they are left in ‘no doubt of the plays polemic purpose’. Despite the huge generalisation, he is generally correct; the play (whether Rayson intended it or not) is very political and should not be analysed as fiction. Nobody can make crude jokes about sensitive issues and then claim it to be the work of fiction when they get a markedly rash response. Likewise, Rayson shouldn’t claim her work to be fiction when the links to SIEV-X and real events are omnipresent in her text.

Following his establishment that Two Brothers is poor stab at what Rayson deemed “purely fictional”, Hyland undermines Rayson’s self-advocated attempt to debunk the myths surrounding the political divide. He does this by accentuating that Rayson has done nothing but confuse the issue, and that her two main characters have just reinforced old prejudices. Tom represents the stereotypical Left and is defending Hazem, the asylum seeker, whilst Eggs is shown to be ‘a wine-swilling, adulterous, grammar-educated, bigoted bully’.

He continues his piece by linking his two points; Two Brother’s is poor fiction and the attribution of the play as a ‘conspiracy theory’. He shows she has been selective in choosing her truths upon which she based her fiction. He claims that Rayson has ignored the ‘inconvenience’ of the public record; that sailors present as SIEV-X dived into the water to rescue asylum seekers. He debunks the ending of Two Brothers in citing the apology that the government made with the Children Overboard propaganda. However, he is also selective and takes this criticism out of context as he addresses the Tampa crisis, using it as grounds for critiquing Rayson’s send-up of an entirely different issue.

Hyland includes a distinct paragraph in which he distances himself from the typical criticisms that have been received poorly, such as those of Andrew Bolt’s ‘Hannie’s Evil Brew’. He does this by identifying himself as being distinctly Left, for he shows he is compassionate about the issue himself. He seeks to show this by devoting a paragraph to an extended emotive appeal, reciting events in which asylum seekers have been grossly abused, using appeals such as ‘frightened, desperate, traumatised people’ to refer to the asylum seekers. This argument is intelligent for it serves it’s purpose well, giving his opinion more weight for he is critiquing a response on his same side, which suggests that it really is bad.

tloves

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2011, 06:45:36 pm »
+2
Bit late now, but I haven't seen any on Atonement so this is my adaptations and transformations sac essay. Might be handy for someone in the 2012 class :)

To what extent does Wright’s film adaptation retain the essence of McEwan’s novel Atonement in The Fountain Scene?


There are several differences and limitations of adapting a text to a different medium specific not only to the text but the nature of the mediums involved in the adaptation. In the case of Ian McEwan’s 2001 novel Atonement’s film adaptation by Joe Wright, Wright chooses not to omit but rather transform the elements in McEwan’s text not transferable to film so the underpinning essence of the novel is retained. As a result his adaptation is as faithful to the novel as cinematic conventions allow.

For example, In McEwan’s novel, Briony Tallis is the protagonist. In the film it would have been an easy mistake for Wright to miss the empathy that is necessary for the audience to feel towards Briony’s character, having the film fit the conventions of a ‘Hollywood Romance’ focused solely on Robbie and Cecilia’s relationship rather than the impact Briony and her actions have had on that relationship. In Wright’s adaptation Briony is the only character to look directly into the lense of the film, connecting with the audience. This happens several times throughout the film, most notably at the beginning and end of the epochal Fountain Scene.

Additionally, Wright had the issue of characters’ imaginations to deal with when adapting Atonement. McEwan’s novel is ultimately an interior novel with lengthy inner monologues and explorations of the internal human condition, where the power of the imagination is a key theme as is evident in Briony’s false accusation and attempts at atonement. The film medium does not allow the audience to be privy to internal thoughts, and the audience observes only what the characters say and do. When McEwan wrote the Fountain Scene from Briony’s point of view the reader is told all the false conclusions Briony is coming to, (eg ‘a proposal of marriage’) and having previously read Cecilia’s description of events, we can see not only how Briony is wrong but, importantly, also how easy it was for her to be wrong. In Wright’s adaptation of the Fountain scene he made the decision to reverse the order of the two Fountain Scenes, having Briony’s point of view shown before Cecilia and Robbie’s. Wright is positioning the audience to view the muted, fragmented, confusing and unfamiliar scene alongside Briony, experiencing the same cluelessness as her. Only afterwards are we presented with the explanation, through Cecilia and Robbie’s point of view. It is through this decision that Wright replaces the novel’s description of ‘how easy it was to get something wrong, completely wrong’.

Wright symbolizes Briony’s imagination (the ultimate creator) throughout her point of view of the Fountain Scene. Briony’s attention is drawn to the window by a bee. The noise of the bee is buzzing annoyingly, the sound reverberating and incessant, just like the imagination does in the mind. A close up reveals the bee also has a sting on its tail, giving it a slightly menacing disposition – a homage to the capabilities of Briony’s imagination. The bee (Briony’s imagination) watches the fountain scene alongside her through the window. At its conclusion, Briony liberates the bee and is shown striding through a rose-covered pergola, a motif associated throughout with Briony going off into the depths of her imagination. The bee and its sting has alerted the audience to the dangers of Briony’s imagination, and the music that accompanies Briony as she ‘goes off into the depths of her imagination’ through the pergola is ominous. While the audience cannot read the confused conclusions Briony has jumped to (as is available in McEwan’s novel), the visual cues Wright has employed gives the audience awareness and allows them to speculate.

While in McEwan’s novel the audience is given three first-person perspectives of the Fountain Scene, In his film interpretation Wright only offers two. He merges Cecilia and Robbie’s Fountain Scene. It would be pointless for Wright to show Cecilia and Robbie’s perspectives of the Fountain Scene separately as visually their experiences are the same. It is only in their consciousness and emotions that their experiences of the same events differ; these differences can be illustrated in the film by shot selection and body language. In the novel Cecilia’s prose is excessive and trifling, imitating the languid and claustrophobic summer day atmosphere McEwan is attempting to capture. Joe Wright is able to focus on the action of the scene rather than dwelling on the aesthetics (for example, costume) as these are readily available to the audience visually, they do not need to work to picture them in their mind’s eye as a novel’s reader does. Cecilia’s restlessness is shown by a medium shot of her running through the forest, enjoying the ‘sheer exhilaration of movement’, likewise Cecilia’s concern for how Robbie sees her is demonstrated when she looks concernedly into a mirror before going to speak with him. Wright utilizes the availability of body language to communicate to the audience the tension, restraint and attraction that is amounting between Robbie and Cecilia which, in his novel, McEwan described at great detail from the first-person point of view of the pair. Their synchronous movement demonstrates the familiarity between Robbie and Cecilia as they walk through the grounds; first when, as if choreographed, they pass and light cigarettes, and then when Robbie playfully circles Cecilia as they walk. The abrupt delivery of dialogue between the characters adds to the tense atmosphere of the scene, an atmosphere that is broken at the same time as the vase is. The delivery of dialogue slows to a stop. When Cecilia breaks the surface of the water upon retrieving the broken vase, so too broken is the façade the two have been painstakingly holding. In his novel, McEwan has Cecilia and Robbie describe this moment as the moment they finally acknowledged their mutual sexual attraction. In the film, Wright illustrates this epiphanous moment with close-ups of Robbie and Cecilia’s expressions accompanied by uncomfortable silence.

Wright’s film adaptation is successful in its effort to translate McEwan’s novel to a film medium whilst preserving the film’s underlying themes, characterization and imagery. The claustrophobic, restrained and artificial atmosphere of the Tallis household is transferred onto the screen with kitsch sets and vivid, ‘ripe to the edge of rotten’ colours. The re-exploration of events so crucial to McEwan’s contention is retained, with scenes ‘replayed’ as they are cut alternatively from separate viewpoints as in the Fountain Scene. Whilst the form and structure of the Fountain Scene may be altered, it is filmically compensated and consequently its essence retained.



1096 words

2010: Psych 3/4 [39]
2011: Revolutions 3/4 | English 3/4 | Media 3/4 | Literature 3/4

2012: Arts at Monash or Melbourne?

Lolly

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 765
  • Respect: +114
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2012, 06:23:13 pm »
+2
 Is this thread dead? I’d love to read more from anyone doing lit this year, particularly close analysis. This is my Adaptations and Transformations essay on Hamlet - the adaptation of the original text in "The Mousetrap" to Kenneth Branagh's film.

 Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Branagh's filmic adaptation portray the subversion inherent within the Court of Denmark and the implications of inverting social and political power. The cinematic adaptation elaborates on the original text, emphasising the full extent of Hamlet's deliberate abasement of authority. Through filmic devices and techniques, Branagh presents the audience with a distinct interpretation of Hamlet's domineering behaviour. This is in contrast to the play, where Hamlet is portrayed as far more subtle in his machinations.

Within both film and play, Hamlet is revealed to be acrimonious in his interactions with other characters. However, while the vitriol of his savage diatribe upon Ophelia is well observed within the play, the film magnifies the intensity of his harangue. Branagh seizes upon the alliteration of "Any show you'll show him" to sound incomprehensible, reinforcing Hamlet's words as intrinsically pejorative. Moreover, Hamlet's demeanour is depicted as imposing - his physical advancements toward Ophelia are abrupt and accentuate the mordancy of his verbal attack with threatening body language. The hurried pace of their exchanges, together with frequent cross cutting enhance the tension of their interaction, punctuated with Ophelia's repetition of "my Lord". The Director's use of eyeline matching proceeding the line "as woman's love" follows with a medium shot of Gertrude, implicitly blaming her for her "incestuous" marriage to Claudius. The film portrays Hamlet's blatant acridity, presenting a clear judgement of his thoughts and assumptions.

Claudius' call for "lights" is representational of Hamet's conquest of circumstances. In the cinematic adaptation, the stage is well lit, implying Claudius' plea as metaphorical and evidence of Hamlet's success in abasing authoriry. Within the script, Claudius's agitation in the cry of away!" is observed with an exclamation mark. Conversely, the film portrays Claudius' exit as dignified and defiant. His silence denotes cool animosity, contrasting with Hamlet's clamorous expostulations. Claudius' reaction is more closely examined within the film, with closeups of his face crosscutting to the act of murder. Thus, the audience is presented with an overt interpretation of Claudius' thought process, in contrast to the play where this may only be suggested. Upon appearance of Lucianus, Branagh utilises brief alternating shots, coupled with the sound of dissonant brass, in a culmination of dramatic tension. Hamlet reinforces his subversion by mirroring this player's movements, a clarification of his intentional threat as "nephew to the king".Hamlet's dominance and Claudius' situational weakness is portrayed in Branagh's  interpretation of Shakespeare's definitive text.

The cinematic portrayal employs aspects of mise en scene in order to communicate characters and implicit messages. The change of setting from "The Great Hall of Elsinore Castle" to an actual theatre reinforces the impression that "The Mousetrap" is emblematic of the outward narrative. The dumb show portrays symmetrical, rehearsed and exaggerated conventions of stagecraft which directly contrast the naturalistic surroundings of the film set. Branagh clearly establishes this separation between the world of Denmark and the playlet in order to impart the parallel between this artificial projection and the audience's external reactions. Furthermore, this symmetry and parallelism suffuses itself in the very construction of the set; the Courtiers sit in alternation columns of red and white and wide shots reveal that the theatre is inherently symmetrical. The warm lighting and predominate red tones create an intimate setting, magnifying the interactions of characters to a greater intensity. Moreover, Hamlet, dressed in black, appears in stark contrast to this impression of orderly society. His attire extends on the imagery of Shakespeare's urtext "let the devil wear black"  and motifs of death evident within the dialogue -  "the croaking raven" - complement the background of a strategically placed "grim reaper" prop,enhancing the threat of both Lucianus and Hamlet. The arrangement of the film's setting  makes manifest the meaning and imagery of Shakespeare's written language.

The intertextuality of both film and play project Hamlet's misuse of mimetic art as a means of subverting authority. The relevance of mimicry is emphasised within the filmic medium, since the film itself is an adaptation - an imitation -so to speak, of Shakespeare's urtext. Likewise, the playlet is symbolic of external plot and characters, with key phrases from the performance interposed with crosscuts to specific characters; the Player Queen's expostulation "though I distrust" is immediately associated with Gertrude in a subsequent medium shot of her uncertain, wavering expression. This clearly exposes "The Mousetrap" as analogous to the main narrative.  Indeed, the Director is emphatic in interpreting the parallels between the Players and the Courtiers, dispeling the uncertainty of the play's connontations. With these parallels firmly established, Branagh is able to present Hamlet's unambiguous intent -  that the sole purpose of "The Mousetrap" is to incriminate Claudius and implicate Gertrude. The film conveys the playlet purely as polemic, whereas the text is not as explicit in these demands; Branagh depicts King Hamlet's murder, yet the script may only suggest Claudius' memory of the deed. Hamlet is characterised by his intractable behaviour, intoned in the vociferous protest of " Is this a prologue or the posy of a ring?" In demeaning his own play, Hamlet reinforces the notion that the dramatic medium is a mere vessel of controversy, within which lies an "argument". The film portrays Hamlet's manipulation of an art form and characterises this intent with his sarcastic and mocking behaviour.

Shakespeare's "Hamlet", as interpreted in Branagh's filmic rendition, emphasises Hamlet's overt purpose of challenging authority within the Court of Denmark. Through drawing direct analogies between the theatre audience and "The Mousetrap" play, the Director effectively eliminates the ambiguity of the urtext in its adaptation to the cinematic medium.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 12:47:17 pm by lollymatron »

VivaTequila

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Respect: +131
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2012, 10:31:54 pm »
+1
It's not dead, it's just that there's not many students studying Literature comparative to other subjects, and because of the diversity of texts studied, not many people find AN particularly helpful for it because everybody is studying something unique to their school, and so this thread doesn't get a lot of action.

Hutchoo

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2356
  • Mate.
  • Respect: +218
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 06:28:32 pm »
0
I'll post some close analysis stuff when it goes to that time of year. All my work was written rather than typed.

That 'time of the year' is now ;p. Post up some stuff please!

Hutchoo

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2356
  • Mate.
  • Respect: +218
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2012, 06:41:45 pm »
0
Holy gawsh. 1.5K WORDS.. HOW THE HELL CAN SOMEONE WRITE SO MUCH IN THE EXAM!

Thanks for it though, I'll read it.

Hutchoo

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2356
  • Mate.
  • Respect: +218
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2012, 06:50:22 pm »
0
Holy gawsh. 1.5K WORDS.. HOW THE HELL CAN SOMEONE WRITE SO MUCH IN THE EXAM!

Thanks for it though, I'll read it.
These are practice essays which I typed rather than hand wrote, so they're a bit longer than normal. I only wrote about 1250-1400 words per essay in the exam.
xP. "Only"? Uhm, pretty sure EZ wrote ~1.1 - 1.2k words MAX per essay in the exam. Your practice pieces go up to 1.7k words, which is ... a fak load. 28 words per minute, remarkable.

How many hours did you spend writing these?

Lolly

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 765
  • Respect: +114
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2012, 09:53:19 pm »
0
Quote
I write a lot though, even for people who write a lot. My language analysis SAC for English was roughly 2000 words in about 100 minutes.

Wow, fair effort Charmanderp :) I'm really slow; the prospect of writing two essays in two hours still terrifies me. But I know I'll get there eventually. I have to and I will. I can usually put together about 900-1000 words but I'm trying to write more.

Thanks for these essays, I shall mull them over in the next few days and perhaps post a few more of my own :)

charmanderp

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3209
  • Respect: +305
  • School Grad Year: 2012
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2012, 10:37:13 pm »
+1
You'll find that in the exam itself you might have an adrenaline rush which will allow you to write a lot faster! Certainly happened to me.
University of Melbourne - Bachelor of Arts majoring in English, Economics and International Studies (2013 onwards)

Hutchoo

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2356
  • Mate.
  • Respect: +218
Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2012, 10:41:43 pm »
0
You'll find that in the exam itself you might have an adrenaline rush which will allow you to write a lot faster! Certainly happened to me.
I've talked to a few high achievers and they all said the exact same thing!