Advanced English - Module A Speech

[martinarena_]

Hey there 
I was wondering if I could get some feedback? Just a quick recap, we had to write a speech, where 'You have been invited to speak at the Sydney Writers Festival about the importance of texts in conversation. Compose a speech which examines how the comparative treatment of texts and contexts enhances our understanding of the significance of an idea/theme.' The theme/idea I chose was the maintenance of conformity within the masses through the abject control of power. My prescribed texts are Metropolis and 1984.

So many of us here today at the Sydney Writer’s Festival, turn towards literature, both in the form of print and film, to assist in interpreting the world we live in. I want you to close your eyes for a moment and think about all the texts you have read; can you see that on the surface they do not share any obvious commonalities? However, if we take a comparative approach to such texts, paralleling the contextual elements that have shaped each composer’s perspective and proportionally, each narrative’s themes and ideas, will we then be able to see that they share the collective purpose of communicating a message that has relevance to our society today. For today’s talk, I want to focus on the following dystopian texts that have been ubiquitous within our society regardless of the changing times; Fritz Lang’s seminal expressionist film, ‘Metropolis’, and George Orwell’s highly acclaimed, satirical novel, ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1984). Particularly, at the centre of both texts is an enquiry into how an abject control of power has the potential to affect individual conformity within the masses, which will ostensibly, enhance our understanding of the need to be conscious of our human identity and critical thought.

So, what ways can power be utilised? If we look into Lang’s ‘Metropolis,’ a critical way in which power is exercised is through an exaggerated societal stratification. Power is abjectly controlled by the autocratic industrialist, Joh Fredersen, an allusion of the uber-industrialist, Hugo Stinnes whose influence led to the monopolisation of industry during the nascent Weimar Republic, a period of rapid urbanisation. Fredersen advocates disempowerment of the working class through the distinction between the upper and middle strata, symbolically shown in the literal hierarchical levels they occupy. The intertitle of “Deep beneath the earth lay the City of Workers” refers to the underground level that the middle class operates at. The symmetrical shot of the two groups of workers, accompanied by the consanguinity of the sombre non-diegetic music, the workers synchronised mechanical, conformist movements, and identical dark, drab costumes, merges them with the industrial underground colour scheme – this contextually positions us to see them as the expendable by-products of exploitation within this setting. Contrastingly, the wealthy upper class who occupy the “the high above towered complex known as the ‘Son’s Club,’” thrive in a spacious environment where the shift from a sombre to jovial tone in the non-diegetic music parallels their vigorous and ‘celebratory’ movements. This class differentiation is Lang’s representation of the impact hyper-inflation had on the growing distinction between the wealthy and poor within Germany, in 1923. Let me ask you this, the accentuated division between the classes – is that not something we still see today? Luckily, although the workers conform to the industrialist expectations, Lang’s use of foreshadowing at the orientation of the film in, “the mediator between the head and the hands must be the heart,” recognises that a utopic resolution within the dystopian is still possible through the ‘mediator.’

Similarly, within Orwell’s, ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four,’ class division is also a source of controlling power. This is held by a totalitarian regime, ‘Ingsoc’, which is led by an infallible leader, ‘Big Brother,’ who is allegorically symbolic of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, the prevailing despotic dictators of Orwell’s milieu. However, opposing ‘Metropolis,’ we see that the dictatorship specifically maintains power and imposes conformity, by using corrupt devices to prioritize the manipulation of an individual, emotionally and psychologically. Noticeably, the modus operandi of the daily, ritualistic ‘Two Minutes of Hate,’ liberates and directs any zealous anguish felt by the oppressed masses towards Ingsoc’s perceived ‘enemies,’ ultimately creating a sense of ‘patriotic allegiance’, conveyed in the triadic asyndeton of, “the speeches, the shouting, the banners.” Moreover, the destruction of words, which takes hold within Oceania’s official language ‘Newspeak,’ purposefully “narrows the range of thought.” By psychologically manipulating an individual’s thoughts through language, they can be made willing to conform, and if we look at the ironic antithesis of, “It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words,” disempowerment is seemingly admired already! Imagine if that occurred today, where the word ‘no’ isn’t just something you can’t say, but something you can’t even think. Contrary to Lang’s recognition of a utopic resolution, the oppressive control of power possessed by ‘Ingsoc’ is shaped by Orwell’s perspective of the existential nihilism prevalent in the Cold War era, which aligns with the bleak denouement ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ ends with.

Through a comparative study made in both the contextual elements and ideas portrayed in the two texts, we can see that power is a prominent cause of individual conformity. However, if we look into the divergent endings of the texts, it brings to light that a society that lacks individual identity and critical thought, is only possible if no one realises the present conditions they live in. Does that mean the abject control of power exerted by oppressive leaders is solely to blame for individual conformity? Or is it our own state of ignorance too? After all, ‘Big Brother’ posits ignorance as strength.
, without the realisation made by individuals, there is no way for a change to occur. That brings me to this – are we or have we, already decided to go with what we are told?


AND, thank you in advance