In Emily Dickinson’s “Because I could not Stop for Death”, the narrator regrets her actions and wishes she could have changed her fate. On the other hand, Edith Wharton’s Ethan Frome, fate is said to be predetermined. By exercising free will, in trying to avoid their inevitable downfall, these three unconnected works of literature encompass the two types of fate, that which can change and that which is predetermined. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the fate of several people are changed through the actions of individuals that exercise their free-will. In the beginning of this play Macbeh states, “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir” (Shakespeare).
After watching a small part of his revenge play out in front of in the form of Ariel’s act as a harpy, Prospero comments that the spirit had “performed” the “figure of this harpy” in a way that had been, in his words, “of my instruction” (Shakespeare, III.iii.84-86). The specific word choice utilized in these lines by Shakespeare suggest the prevalence of the theater. If the small play that Ariel participated in throughout this scene had been under the instruction of Prospero, the emphasis on the word “performed” and well as the emphasis on “instruction” seems to suggest that Ariel and Prospero can be classified into the categories of “performer” and “director” respectively. Just as a performer must obey and answer to a stage director, Ariel must listen and obey not only to the directions Prospero gives in concern to his revenge, but also to his overall demands and instructions; from the beginning as master and servant, this type of power balance had existed, but through the medium of their small production, they are capable of gaining titles such as “actor” and “stage director.” Viewing The Tempest already through the lenses of the theatre, Shakespeare not only establishes Ariel’s exploits as a harpy as a type of performance, he assigns this “stage play” a creator, or in stage production terms, a
Conflict is one of the many ways Shakespeare used to spice up the play of Romeo and Juliet. Not to mention that conflict is a recurring theme within the play as it intertwines with several other themes to importantly show the relationship of conflict to tragedy. He explores conflict to bring the significance of tragedy within the play, this can be observed that the idea of conflict has been dispersed throughout the play. This can be seen as when conflicts build up and unveil itself in a chain till the death of Romeo and Juliet, this intensifies what Shakespeare depicts the conflict as a means of proving the worth of conflict in the play. Since the play of Romeo and Juliet was set In Verona, during the Renaissance period, it was the rebirth of Art and beauty, showcasing nobility, humility, and dignity.
What would one expect than to live a life and encounter the stages or cycles that are bound to happen? William Shakespeare portrays this in his writing "The Seven Ages of Man" as he ultimately explains the world to a stage and life to a play. Similarities fall into the retold story "Demeter" by Edith Hamilton, as she writes her story the cycles of the earth 's seasons through Greek mythology. Both writings essentially depict the significance of life and the relationships upon it that enables us to answer the questions about life. "And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages."
Thought Piece: Hamlet’s First Soliloquy When comparing Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet to Kenneth Branagh's rendition, the preceding setup of Hamlet’s first soliloquy is just as important as the interpreted performance itself. Branagh’s version seems to stay true, but not without added extravagance, to the original, in which Claudius and Gertrude attempt to wean Hamlet off of the sorrowful milk of mourning whilst in the company of many onlooking eyes and the council. This contrasts to Zeffirelli’s, in that his version primarily takes place in what appears to be Hamlet’s study, making the conversation between the King, Queen, and Hamlet much more intimate, which, in my opinion, seemed much more fitting and natural. In the play text, no more than 10 people seem to have been written to appear onstage during Act 1 Scene 2, so Claudius and Gertrude's pleas and words of persuasion would most likely seem less strange in the company of others, considering when these things tend to happen in plays the uninvolved characters just fall away into the background until it is their turn to speak or act; however in the midst of the grandeur setting of Branagh’s interpretation of the scene, it comes across as rather odd to speak about such private matters in front of what seems like at least one hundred or so
The selected passage is an extract of Act 5 Scene 5 from The Tragedy of Macbeth written by the world’s famous dramatist William Shakespeare (1564-1616). It is supposed to have been first performed at the Globe Theatre, London in 1611, though it is likely to have been performed earlier than this. Central to The Tragedy of Macbeth is the physical and moral destruction cause when; “An ambitious man usurps power and undermines social and political order. In the process, moral and spiritual are also seriously attacked, but in the end order is restored under a wise, strong and legitimate king.” (Total Study Edition, 2016) This extract is the last soliloquy of the play. Macbeth has returned from his meeting with the witches and his confidence of
Equally important, in the play Hamlet himself is able to occupy the liminal space between time dimensions of life and afterlife. In addition, throughout the play within a play, “The Murder of Gonzago”, Hamlet makes use of cognitive theories, and thus, succeeds to trigger the audience emotions which are mirroring the fictional emotions that are performed in the play within a play. Furthermore, for Hamlet the "mousetrap" play is a mirror that reflects the reality; hence, Hamlet 's meditations about the subject of time are in fact his cognitive expression for the fracture in time which was caused by his father 's death. Shakespeare opens the play with the words of Bernardo: "Who 's there?" which apparently triggers the
Purgatorio by Ariel Dorfman is a sequel to the classical play Medea – a greek tragedy by Euripides – which presents the afterlife of Medea and Jason. The play consisted of only 2 cast – a man and a woman – which alternately wears a white coat and a black clothing giving us the idea of one confronting the other. From the start towards the end, there is an exploration on issues concerning their past and how these sins can be forgiven. There is an importance in having to study this for it answers how sins – no matter how big and small they are – can be forgiven if the person understands, accepts the situation, and repents from the heart. In this paper, I will talk about how the whole plot takes a step further from what the classical play Medea is concerned because it encompasses Medea and Jason’s search for
For centuries, Shakespeare’s compositions have fascinated audiences and academics alike. King Lear, one of Shakespeare’s most established tragedies, details King Lear’s catastrophic downfall from the throne of Britain. Based on an earlier work by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Shakespeare adapts “Leir of Britain” from Historia Regum Britanniae as the groundwork for King Lear. Although Shakespeare’s theatrical production remains undoubtedly comparable to its source, significant differences between the two works result in distinct outcomes. Shakespeare, in comparison to Monmouth, opts to develop Lear to a greater extent.
Shakespeare opens the play with the words of Bernardo: "Who 's there?" which apparently triggers the ghost of the late king to appear. Provided that, it seems that a question which is being pronounced in the present times causes the former king 's ghost to appear; hence, a connection between the present time and the past is being created, by doing so Shakespeare states that the play operates on different levels of time all correlated together. At the same time, with the use of these words Shakespeare illustrates that in the play everything has more than one meaning; thus, it is clearly considered as fiction when Shakespeare writes the words "Who 's there? ", and it is a real occasion when these words are pronounced by the actor in the play.
Journal The first part of Don Quixote came to an end as Sancho Panza and Don Quixote reached their town in La Mancha, naturally Cervantes begins part two in the same setting. His struggle with part two must have been with the incorporation of his complex and evolving characters in part 2. The idea of ‘Quixotification’ and ‘Sanchification’ was introduced to the reader quite vaguely in part one of the novel, as a change in character is a slow and steady process, but in part two, right from the beginning, these changes are emphasized by Cide Hamete Benegeli and made very apparent to even a non-critical reader. Sancho’s conversation with his wife is a prime example of Quixotification. Now that he isn’t in the presence of someone more intelligent
I noticed that Kingsolver use the idea of language to demonstrate the distinct character. For example Rachel consistently misuses of words reveals a lot about her character. In book three looking at the last paragraph of one section where Rachel says, “But I won’t tell her. I prefer to remain anomalous” (270). In this line Rachel probably meant to say, “I prefer to remain anonymous.” But instead she misuses the word anomalous.
I found it even more unfulfilling that the pieces were rearranged to be the way they were, please remember that I said this is just a minor comment of my own personal opinion. Now that we’ve gotten rid of the least important segment of the review of “Almost Maine.” I want to turn our attention to the actors in how they portrayed and used on the set of this adaptation. Oz Herrera-Sobal (previously from “Wonder of the World” as Kip) makes a comeback into this play, and honestly I found him a lot more fitting within this play than in “Wonder of the World.” Other actors such as Rose Mallari, Jelaine Maestas and Umi Grant have also played a part in this adaptation. First I want to say that each actor fulfilled the role to be played with their decent level of acting. But sadly my compliments are overshadowed by the workload being inflicted onto two main actors within the play.
In the comedy “10 things I hate about you” directed by Gil Junger, numerous elements of the movie are heavily influenced by the play “the Taming of the Shrew”, which is a comedic play written by the poet William Shakespeare. Many core components of the movie, such as the characters, plot and general story, are all inspired and even copied from the play itself. One such component is the characters Patrick Verona and his “the Taming of the Shrew” equivalent Petruchio. In the movie, Patrick takes the role of the outsider, a character who has no regard for his own reputation as shown by how he does things that are out of the ordinary, such when he “ate a live duck..minus the beak and feet” and explicitly said to Kate “i’m sure you have thought
Shakespeare wrote The First Part of Henry the IV to adhere to an audience that would be familiar with the history and the characters within the play, because it was still considered recent history; however, he did alter the storyline to gear the play in a more tragic direction rather than writing the historical events as they truly happened. Similar to most of his plays, this play had been published multiple times, by several different publishers, which causes some discrepancies between the different versions. MORE DUMMY. A major difference that is clearly noticeable is the titles of the two versions, specifically with the amount of detail the titles give about the plot of the play. The 1598 version, which was published by P.S.