Fatality In Othello

Fatality In Othello
[Bradley presents an overview of Othello, in an attempt to discover what makes this the "most
painfully exciting and the most terrible" of Shakespeare's tragedies. He highlights aspects of the play
which reinforce its emotional impact: the rapid acceleration of the plot, the intensity of Othello's
jealousy, the passive suffering of Desdemona, and the luck and skill involved in Iago's intrigue.
According to Bradley, these features combine to produce feelings of "confinement" and "dark
fatality" that suggest that the characters cannot escape their destinies. He then discusses three
scenes–Othello's striking of Desdemona in IV. i, Othello's treatment of Desdemona as a whore in IV.
ii, and her death in V. ii–and maintains that the emotional intensity ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
I mean the suffering of Desdemona. This is, unless I mistake, the most nearly intolerable spectacle
that Shakespeare offers us. For one thing, it is mere suffering; and, ceteris paribus [other things
being equal], that is much worse to witness than suffering that issues in action. Desdemona is
helplessly passive. She can do nothing whatever. She cannot retaliate even in speech; no, not even in
silent feeling. And the chief reason of her helplessness only makes the sight of her suffering more
exquisitely painful. She is helpless because her nature is infinitely sweet and her love absolute. I
would not challenge Mr. [Algernon Charles] Swinburne's statement [in his Study of Shakespeare]
that we pity Othello even more than Desdemona; but we watch Desdemona with more unmitigated
distress. We are never wholly uninfluenced by the feeling that Othello is a man contending with
another man; but Desdemona's suffering is like that of the most loving of dumb creatures tortured
without cause by the being he
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Literary Scholarship And Criticism Of Shakespeare 's ' The...
Shakespeare critic and Harvard literature professor, Harold Bloom, asserts that Shakespeare is the
metaphorical "inventor of man." Bloom writes:
The plays remain the outward limit of human achievement: aesthetically, cognitively, in certain
ways morally, even spiritually. They abide beyond the end of the mind's reach, we cannot catch up
to them. Shakespeare will go on explaining us, in part because, he invented us" (pp. 19–20).
Bloom's audacious evaluation of Shakespeare has been echoed throughout the canon of literary
scholarship and criticism. In fact, Bloom's "invention" thesis, found in Shakespeare: The Invention
of the Human, represents a culmination of centuries of teaching and reflection upon the famous
English poet's craft. This ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hamlet: The Prince of Denmark is a hallmark example of Shakespeare's contemplation of social
tolerance and equity in the exploration of human sociology. In this play, we see the malignant
ambition of newly throned King Claudius, the questionable decision–making of Queen Gertrude,
and the emotionally–preying and encompassing force of murdered King Hamlet's ghost, construct
the grounds for contemplation of human drama; this contemplation is essentially distilled and
literally embodied by the character of Prince Hamlet. Moreover, the "truth," hidden at the onset of
this play, sets the internal and external conflict for Prince Hamlet as well as the figurative stage for a
study of human character and action, or alternatively, ego and power. Prince Hamlet's own ego is
festered by the crime against his father: a murder committed by Hamlet's ambitious uncle, Claudius,
whose own ego has led him down a the path of a usurper. Yet, Shakespeare exposes that the pains of
human ego are not morally equivalent between these two. Hamlet's pain and feelings of slight come
at the potential truth that his father was murder. His ego is that of a wounded sense of self created
out of the anguish he feels in his inability to take deliberate action against Claudius, driven out of
the lack of evidence to truly

Analysis Of Hamlet And King Lear
The social tolerance of these plays goes hand in hand with their exploration of human psychology.
The hallmark examples of Shakespeare's penetration into the human psyche are Hamlet and King
Lear. In the former, Shakespeare explores the state of melancholia in the young prince of Denmark.
Even after the play is finished the audience is still left pondering whether or not Hamlet is truly
sane. Bloom writes: "the question of Hamlet always must be Hamlet himself, for Shakespeare
created him to be as ambivalent and divided a consciousness as a coherent drama could sustain"
(387). Further, in his analysis of the character, Bloom asserts that Hamlet "transcends his play"
(385). Running with this notion, it is possible to suggest that, in the character of Hamlet,
Shakespeare explores the psychology of morality in and of itself. Shakespeare critic Richard Hilliard
asserts that in Hamlet's makeup is one of an adept moral consciousness; He writes:
"What should be clear...is that, until the tragic catastrophe, Hamlet is a moral dynamo,
systematically interrogating every echelon of Claudius's crooked court, flashing mirrors of folly and
vice into blind eyes..." (Hilliard).
This perspective positions Hamlet as transcendently aware of the multiple moral consequences he
faces in his act of revenge. Consequently, without absolute certainty, Hamlet hesitates to act. In
Hamlet's soliloquies lie the most profound insights of psychological deliberation and ruminations on
human existence. The famous "to be or not to be" soliloquy highlights the confliction of the mind
that Hamlet, and doubtless every viewer or reader, has encountered when faced with a decision that
will leave them scathed. Furthermore, Hamlet's reaction, when faced with the skull of his former
jester, Yorick, uncovers, in the most poignant way, the fragility of human existence and the psyche's
contemplation of death:
"Alas, poor / Yorick! I knew him...a fellow of infinite / jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath borne
me on / his back a thousand times. And now how abhorred / in my imagination it is! My gorge rises
at it. Here / hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how / oft. Where be your gibes now? Your
gambols, your / songs, your flashes of merriment

Hamlet Soliloquy Analysis
Over the years, many different directors have tackled the action packed film Hamlet, each adding
their own special twists to the story line. Most importantly, the famous To be or not to be soliloquy.
Throughout this scene, Hamlet is struggling with the idea of suicide and is contemplating if life is
worth all the pain he has been facing and is working up the courage to avenge his father's unkindly
death. Of the three versions studied, Kenneth Branagh's was superior in expressing the overall
intentions of this soliloquy.
Due to the era it was filmed in, Laurence Olivier's rendition of Hamlet's soliloquy was by far the
worst of the three studied. The purpose of the action packed music at the beginning was to enhance
the mood, but it ended up being cliche and disruptive. Similarly, the strange camera angles and
movements between the ocean and Hamlet were confusing and took away from the main focus of
the soliloquy. The actor himself severely lacked expression and spoke very calm and quiet, leaving
the viewer bored and not at all intrigued. An example of this occurs right after a loud outburst of
violin notes, when Hamlet states "To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream" (3.1.66). While the
outburst should have elicited some sort of reaction from Hamlet, it creates a small movement and
brief increase in volume. This is a very important line in the soliloquy in which Hamlet is
contemplating suicide and comparing death to sleep, but due to the confusing outburst and lack of

Analysis Of Away By Michael Gow
AWAY
Michael Gow
"Away" is a historical play written in 1988 by Michael Gow. Away reflects to the central ideas,
values and conflicts of Australia in 1967–68. The central ideas embrace outsiders, family conflicts
and grief and loss which affected families in the play and in the time. Gow uses three main families
to convey the message of the play. The use of language and stylistic devices influence the way Gow
has been able to speak to the modern Australian audience. In the play, Gow is able to speak to the
modern Australian audience with the clever, complex use of allusion. The modern audience would
have to do research to understand the allusions in the play however on a superficial level the
audience is still able to enjoy the central themes and ideas of the play.
Gow uses allusions throughout the play, to communicate to his audience. He alludes to two of
Shakespeare's plays; Midsummer Night's Dream, and King Lear, two well–known actors in the
1960's; Chips Rafferty and Laurance Olivier and The Vietnam War. When introducing the issues
around the outsiders, Gow uses a juxtaposed allusion to highlight the differences between the two
families. Harry to Tom "Congratulations, son. A real Laurence Olivier, you are." This is a juxtaposed
allusion, Harry is comparing Tom's acting ability to the one of Laurence Olivier, an English actor in
the 1960's. This is foreign to the modern Australian audience. Harry, Vic and Tom lived in England
until moving to Australia after the war.

The Significance of Death and Sex to William Shakespeare
The Significance of Death and Sex to William Shakespeare
In this essay, I will consider Death and Sin in Shakespearean drama and I would like to look at three
of Shakespeare's tragic plays: "Hamlet", "Othello" and "King Lear".
Shakespeare uses many themes in all his play that attract audiences throughout history. The things
he wrote about are as relevant now as they were in his time. Death and Sin were issues that are
always around. In his plays, Shakespeare could comment on these things and make audiences see
things that they could not before.
In Hamlet, we can see clear examples of Death and Sin as significant to Shakespearean drama.
The first thing that points to both death and sin is the inclusion of a ghost in the play. ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Claudius is the cause of a death and therefore also the committer of a sin, and having committed
incest, he is guilty of two sins. The cause of the revelations on Claudius' character as revealed by the
ghost make him a hated character in the play by the audience. There is normally a character that the
audience know everything about, giving cause for them to hate him, and Claudius is "Hamlets"
hated Character.
Religion in the 16th Century was still a prominent issue. Religion had changed from Catholicism to
Christianity, depending on which monarch was on the throne at the time. People were expected to
change religion depending on what their monarch said or face being an outcast. In Elizabeth's reign,
the religion changed from Catholicism to Protestantism. Being unsure of religions myself, the
definition in the Collins pocket dictionary is as follows:
"Protestant: n 1 follower of any of the Christian churches that split from the Roman Catholic Church
in the sixteenth century. Adj 2 of or relating to such a church. Protestantism n"
In the Ten Commandments, written for the Christian faith, there are some elements that must be
followed that are also relevant to Shakespeare's writing:
"Honour thy father and thy mother. Then you will live a long time in the land."
"You must not murder anyone."
"You must not be guilty of adultery."
"You must not want to take your neighbours house. You must not want his

Essay William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice
William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice
Introduction
The three versions of the Merchant of Venice which I have watched are:
1. Channel 4 television version for their Schools Broadcasting Programmes
2. Trevor Nunn's version
3. National Theatre Company version directed by Jonathan Miller and starring Laurence Olivier as
Shylock
Act IV scene 1 is an intense scene in the play where we see many of the play's main themes such as
justice and mercy, money and status, revenge, loyalty, love and prejudice and tolerance.
Shakespeare presents a harsh character in Shylock the Jew, but the fact that he also gives him the
chance to speak more than any other European playwright ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
This would suggest that Shakespeare is using Shylock as more than a symbol of 'Jewishness'. In this
piece of coursework I will be examining mainly how sympathetic or unsympathetic the various
versions seem to be and how each Director has succeeded in making the character of Shylock
worthy of Shakespeare's realism.
Jews were traditionally viewed as outsiders and were not citizens. Christians as far back as the 11th
century could not lend money without interest and many Jews earned a living from this 'profession'
as they could not join the artisan guilds. As they became their own debt collectors they soon became
the target of resentment. A myth was born; with which Shakespeare's audience would have been
familiar, of ritual murder or 'blood libel' that Jews would kill adult Christians. It is to this myth to
which Shakespeare seems to allude in the 'pound of flesh' incident in this scene. Shakespeare is
original in showing us the extent to which Shylock is oppressed by Christians surrounding him and
it is through this that Shakespeare succeeds in drawing out sympathy from his audience.
Analysis of Act IV scene 1

In the text of Act IV scene 1 before we meet Shylock he is described as "a stony adversary, an
inhuman wretch, incapable of pity, void and empty from any dram of mercy". Antonio describes
Shylock's spirit as being full of "tyranny and rage". When Shylock enters

Speech In King Lear
While Lear's two evil daughters Goneril and Regan who use their powers to persuade their father to
divide his kingdom and deliver the power of his kingdom to them. They can convince him to divide
his kingdom between them and deprives his other daughter Cordelia of his kingdom because she
does not praise him in the same way as they do. Goneril expresses her love and how she loves him
more than words can express and that he is dearer to her even than her eyesight and her freedom.
Goneril, being the eldest, has to speak first. She says:
GONERIL: Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter, clearer than eyesight, space, and
liberty, Beyond what can be valu'd, rich or rare, No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honor.
REGAN: I ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It has come as a result of Lear's mind leaped from the theme of rightful authority to his own need to
counter Goneril and Regan's attack on his kingship. When he hears Gloucester's speech in the
cruelty way against his elder son Edmund, he is remembered his ingratitude daughters and
exclaimed: Ha! Goneril with a white beard (IV.vi.115). He recalled how they used to agree with
everything he said before he divided his kingdom. He remembered how his disrespectful daughters
used loyalty, flattery and empty promises to deceive

Portrayal Of Women In Othello
To be or Not to be Patriarchal (An analysis of Shakespeare's plays Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and
Macbeth and his portrayal of the treatment of women throughout each play) Women, the foundation
of life and creators of the world. From early times women were said to be weak, needed to be
controlled by men, or not capable of making decisions for themselves. Women bring life into the
world, they carry the leaders of the world, past, present, or future in their womb. They care and
nurture men to become leaders, doctors, lawyers, singers, etc. Men would not exist if women were
not created. Yet the foul image of them being weak, or close–minded, or even an embarrassment has
become the norm for life since the beginning of time. Shakespeare, present ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Gertrude from the very beginning is downgraded, seen as vial and cruel for remarrying her late
husband's brother. Hamlet says himself, "Frailty thy name is woman!" (Hamlet–1.2.146). He
instantly calls her weak, incestuous, and wishes her death as well as his own for bearing witness to
her betrayal. Shakespeare also includes dear and innocent Ophelia in his patriarchal stereotype of
the 'weaker woman'. "Motherless and complete circumscribed by the men around her, Ophelia has
been shaped to conform to external demands, to reflect others' desires" (Dane). Ophelia having lost
her brother, her father, and the love of her life condemns herself to madness and takes her own life.
She is seen as weak and frail for taking the easy way out. Yet is this not Hamlet's same problem? He
lost his father and he wished his own death more than anything, and she did the one thing he could
not do to himself, take her own life. Does that make her weak? Maybe mentally, but she endured
much more pain than Hamlet before she took her pain away. Hamlet would have done the same if he

Shakespeare's Most Famous Soliloquy With A Mark Of Their...
Actors interpret Shakespeare's most famous soliloquy with a mark of their own artistry.
In films and on stage, actors who play Hamlet exhibit various degrees of emotion and pacing
speed. It is difficult to evaluate the soliloquy on its own because the way the play is performed in
its entirety gives meaning to the soliloquy while the soliloquy also illuminates a special
interpretation in the play. However, I argue that the soliloquy has a musical structure – a sonata
form, specifically – that can serve as a framework under which performances can be analyzed.
Even though they were viewed discretely from their entire play, there are performances of the
soliloquy that may be considered more effective than others under the framework examined
under the sonata form.
The sonata form usually has three main parts: the exposition, the development, and the
recapitulation. In the exposition, the composer introduces a theme that will set the groundwork
for the entire work. Once the theme is introduced, it is often played in a different key but in a
parallel structure. Hamlet's soliloquy begins with the theme of the uncertainty of death: "To be
or not to be, that is the question." The rest of the soliloquy expands on this central theme as it
clearly sets the groundwork for Hamlet's internal struggle. A repeat of this theme is heard when
Hamlet speaks, "To die: to sleep; No more." Now instead of considering the difficulties and
possibly the "nobler" act of

Comparison Between Hamlet And Hamlet
Hamlet Vs. Hamlet: A Comparison Between Films
Laurence Olivier (1948) and Kenneth Branagh (1996) both created films about the Shakespearean
play Hamlet, yet they are both very different. The two films were created fifty years apart and
present their film using their own perspectives and interpretations of Shakespeare's Hamlet while
using the same themes Shakespeare had. Two important themes are the use of technology and
treatment of women.
In Laurence Olivier's 1948 film, women are objectified; this reflects on the year of production. The
abuse in the character roles were more admissibly shown by gender roles. Hamlet is presented as a
very controlling person and is very controlling of Ophelia. He manipulates her into having sex with
him and shows other forms of relentless abuse towards Ophelia. Furthermore, Hamlet reveals no
other signs of affection for her other those of lust. Unlike the version filmed by Kenneth Branagh in
1996, the date filmed is an important factor, as it demonstrated how men interacted with women. In
Olivier's film, Hamlet is stereotypically masculine – monotonous and aggressive. In the beginning
of the first scene, Hamlet appears to be emotionless, until he abruptly points to Claudius and
aggressively yells "All but one!" The scene ends with Hamlet exerting his power over Ophelia by
throwing Ophelia to the ground and leaving her on the steps to lure Polonius and Claudius out from
behind the curtain. Hamlet realizes what he has done to Ophelia, but leaves the room without
helping her up or apologizes for what he has done, even though his plan had failed. It is clear that
Hamlet's plan to use Ophelia as bait had failed because they could not have seen him or Ophelia
from their side of the curtain. Polonius confirms this when he says, "No need to tell us, we have
heard it all". In contrast, Kenneth's Hamlet stops once he sees what he had done to Ophelia and goes
back to her. Kenneth's Hamlet is more emotional. He sheds tears, expresses pain in his voice, deeply
sighs, and overall is less physical with Ophelia. These differences between Kenneth and Olivier's
versions of the character Hamlet reflect the era of which they were created. In Olivier's time, abuse
of women was permitted; a man

Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice and Othello: Shylock vs...
The Merchant of Venice and Othello: Shylock vs Iago
Shakespeare's use of timeless themes make his works relevant to the modern reader. His two plays
"The Merchant of Venice" and "Othello" deal with the seeking of revenge and forbidden love. In
"The Merchant of Venice," Shylock, the main character, is a Jew who loans money and charges
interest. Shylock has an enemy named Antonio who also loans money to people, but without
interest. Iago is a character in "Othello" who has been passed over for a position as Othello's right
hand man. He feels that he deserves the position not the person who received it, Cassio. Both of
these characters want revenge from the people whom they perceive as having done them wrong and
will stop ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Antonio is not able to pay after the three–month period, but in the next couple of days he does get
enough money to pay the debt. Shylock does not want the money anymore, rather the pound of flesh
from Antonio's body. Nothing will make him change his mind. Iago also will stop at nothing to get
his revenge. He uses everything that he can think of to make sure that his plan is fulfilled. These two
characters are also similar in that they are both conniving. Shylock uses his intelligence to convince
Antonio that he has his best interests at heart when he loans him the money. Shylock says that he
will not charge him interest, instead he wants in payment, if Antonio fails to pay, a pound of his
flesh. Iago is also conniving in that he uses people and tells them what they want to hear to help
himself with his plan. He leads Roderigo, Cassio, and Othello on to help fulfill his plans.
Thus, Shylock and Iago appear to be similar in that they both want revenge, are conniving, and
ruthless; however, they are very different when you really look at their characteristics. The first
difference between Shylock and Iago is that the reader can sympathize with Shylock and not Iago.
When Shylock loans Antonio the money, he wants a pound of his flesh as payment if he defaults on
the loan. Shylock says, "The pound of flesh which I demand of him / Is dearly bought, is mine, and I
will have it. / If you deny me,

Love is a Weakness in Shakespeare's Works
"Love is blind, and lovers cannot see" says Shakespeare about love. The fact that love incapacitates
people made him think like that. Indeed people in love do many things which actually they did not
want to do, say many things which they didn't have to say, didn't see things that they had to see.
These impossibilities make people weak. Life and other people always use especially those
weaknesses for hurting or damaging someone, also this weakness makes them open to take
advantage of them by other people. Shakespeare recognizes that and makes adaptation to his
writings. He shows us the how characters find themselves in a conflict which love caused. He
always gives us the impression of "Love is weakness".
Revenge, love, faith... These feelings are the foundations of the Much Ado about Nothing which is
one of the rare comedies written out by Shakespeare. It maintains its importance even though four
and half centuries passed after it's been written. Surely most important factor of this success is its
cleverly fictionalized plot. Shakespeare gives us the chance to observe the behaviors and moves of
people when they faced something wrong with their love or lover. We can easily recognize that most
wise and logical person can move unconsciously when it comes to love. For example, Claudio and
Hero's love is one the best example at this point. The royal, gentleman and brave character of the
play is undoubtedly Claudio. When he learns that Hero cheated on him, that romantic guy

William Shakespeare 's Hamlet And King Lear
American literary critic Harold Bloom, known for his love of Shakespeare said, "Shakespeare is
universal... he has hidden himself behind all of these extraordinary men and women." Shakespeare
is able to connect with many who encounter his work by creating a range of characters such as
heroes in the form of Hamlet or villains in that of Claudius. Playwright William Shakespeare's
Hamlet and King Lear demonstrate the manipulation of family to achieve one's ends. Personal gain
through family is a significant contributing factor to both of these tragedies. Their gifts of language
and its delivery is a clear example as well as these villains having no qualms about ignoring morals,
and betraying their own blood. Despite the tragic endings, there is ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
At the same time, he tries to establish his role as a father figure to Hamlet while addressing the
Danish Court, and informing them of his marriage to his brother's widow. "Tis unmanly grief/ It
shows a will most incorrect to heaven/ A heart unfortified, a mind impatient/ ... And with no less
nobility of love/ Than that which dearest father bears his son" (Hamlet 1.2.94–96, 110–111).
Claudius calls Hamlet's grieving unmanly and urges him to move on, because death is only natural.
Moreover, he insultingly claims to feel the most honourable love that a father can have for his son.
In comparison, the main plot in King Lear starts to develop quickly from the beginning when Lear
holds a contest for his daughters. He claims that whichever one of them loves him the most will
receive the biggest piece of the kingdom upon his retirement. Regan and Goneril, seizing an
opportunity for power, are quick to flatter their father with the empty words they know he is
seeking. "I love you more than word can wield the matter;/ Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty;/
... Beyond all manner of so much I love you" (King Lear 1.1.56–57, 62). Goneril immediately
catches on telling her father that words alone can never express her love. She says that she loves him
more than those comparisons she has made. Not to be outdone, Regan has her chance at claiming
that her love for Lear is greater than that of her

Comparing Hamlet And Zeffirelli's Movies
All films about Hamlet have extremely close similarities. However, certain aspects of one movie
enhances the play even more. Though all three films were great, the most exceptional film of the
three is the version by Franco Zeffirelli. The reason why this film is better than the others is because
Hamlet's character is more compelling, Freudian theory makes the play more interesting, and
because the small details in the movie make the play better.
To begin, Hamlet's character in Franco Zeffirelli's film is more interesting than the other three films
watched because Hamlet's character is more insane than the other two. To give an example, in the
first movie, Hamlet's character shows his insanity by contemplating suicide on a cliff. This scene ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
With Freudian theory, the play Hamlet is even more interesting. With the Freudian theory lens, when
watching Hamlet, one could see how the Oedipus complex is present. Without learning the lens, the
play Hamlet would be straightforward and the viewers would lack the ability to see the tension
between Hamlet and his mother. Without Freudian theory, Hamlet is like any other typical movie
about revenge, however with the addition of this lens, the audience has a newer perspective on the
film which makes it more interesting. The first film has a little Freudian theory present, but it does
not show what Hamlet truly wants greatly, thereby making the plot of the play boring. The audience
already has an idea about how the movie will end, which is with Claudius dying. In the last film, the
audience can also assume what is going to happen to Claudius because the plot is very
straightforward. The difference in the second movie, however, is that Freudian theory is shown.
Freudian theory adds to the plot and theme of the play and this prevents the watchers from knowing
what the plot is about. Not only does Hamlet want to kill his uncle, he also wants to have sexual
intercourse with his mother. The audience cannot extrapolate this idea from the plot and because of
this it surprises them and enhances the

Vivien Leigh: A Career In Hollywood
"Show me a great actor and I'll show you a lousy husband; show me a great actress and you've seen
the devil." –W.C. Fields, famous comedian
There are quite a few Hollywood lives that support this quote. Cary Grant was married five times,
having scandalous affairs between marriages. The iconic Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, Judy
Garland, developed a severe addiction to alcohol and relied on medications to keep herself
emotionally stable, eventually dying from an accidental overdose. These are just a few sad
Hollywood lives that many stars hold claim to, and Vivien Leigh was no exception. Best known as
Scarlett O'Hara from Gone With The Wind (1939), she continued to live an increasingly depressing
life as her career pressed on. Vivien Leigh was born November 5, 1913, in Darjeeling, India. At a
young age she decided she wanted to become famous, and pursued a career in acting, even after
facing trials in marital and everyday life. One of the most famous actresses of her time, this is her
story.
At 6 years old, the young Vivian Mary Hartley moved from India to England, where she met
Maureen O'Sullivan, the two becoming fast friends. As a teen, Vivian studied at the Royal Academy
of Dramatic Art, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ironically abiding with W.C. Fields' famous quote, Vivien Leigh was chosen over 400 other
actresses who were asked to do the readings. At the time, not many people knew who Vivien Leigh
was, but Gone With The Wind was going to catapult her to stardom. When the movie came out in
1939, it received a record breaking amount of 17 awards, including 8 Oscars, one going to Vivien
Leigh for best leading actress. Arguably the most famous movie she ever played in, Vivien would
not receive praise as this until her next big hit, A Streetcar Named Desire

Societies' Destructive Behavior around ‘Normal’
Society places value on a person based either on who they are, what they believe, or how much
money they make. What happens when society places value on how "normal" a person is? Using the
texts of "Merchant of Venice" and "Taming of the Shrew" I will argue that in dealing with
difference, society often unintentionally annihilates it; but what remains in its wake is often far more
disturbing. Religion is one of the most dividing forces in a society. At the time of "Merchant of
Venice" Jews were seen as everything that was an external threat to England's national welfare. They
were known as the enemy within the English culture. The feudalist Christians viewed them as dirty,
obsessed with money, and willing to do anything, legal or illegal, to gain monetarily. Christians
projected an image of themselves as holding value in people, rather than profit. One of the first
places we see a divide between the two religions is in a conversation between Bassanio and Shylock
in which the differences in the values that Christians versus Jews hold are brought to light: Oh, no,
no, no, no: my meaning in saying he is a good man is to have you understand me that he is
sufficient. Yet his means are in supposition: he hath an argosy bound to Tripolis, another to the
Indies; I understand moreover, upon the Rialto, he hath a third at Mexico, a fourth for England, and
other ventures he hath, squandered abroad. But ships are but boards, sailors but men: there be land–
rats and

Analyzing The Play 'Henry The V'
Henry the V
William Shake sphere is a well–known poet. He is known as one of the greatest in the English
language. Today his plays are still performed and studied. Henry the V is one of his brilliant plays
that were reinterpreted by Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branaugh. The battle at Agin–court
between the two producers was based on the same play but, staged so different. Kenneth Branaugh
gets five stars for making the battle at Agin–court seem medieval, ferocious and forceful. As
opposed to Laurence Olivier's battle that was not detailed.
Laurence Olivier's movie was very theatrical and supposedly comical. The movie wouldn't be
original if Olivier took out the Chorus and the narrator ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A battle of men fighting honorably for their king and the bloodiest battle of Midevil time. Olivier's
battle of Agin–court looked as it was staged, and didn't really have a realistic battle scene. The battle
looked like it was placed on a piece of land in the middle of nowhere and all the actors were told to
stand in the back ground and look as they were puppets on a string. Oliver wanted more focus on
Himself as henry rather than how the battle took place in realization. A person would have to have a
really good imagination to believe this was a battle. There was one scene where Henry was fighting
with the French it almost seemed as it was a sword fight between two adolescent children. A
medieval historical war is supposed to be bloody and gruesome Olivier failed to please. Oliver's film
was cheaply made and very

Comparing the Presentation of War in the Oliver and...
Comparing the Presentation of War in the Oliver and Branagh Film Versions of Henry the Fifth
Many films have been made of Shakespeare's play, "Henry V". The two I am analysing are by
Laurence Olivier (1944) and Kenneth Branagh (1988). They are made for very different audiences
with different aims. Although they seem very different, in some ways, Branagh's version used many
techniques of Olivier's. Both productions were performed to communicate the director's feelings on
war to the audience and were performed when war had played a part in recent history. Olivier's
version is very pro–war in that he glorifies war but at the same time it lacks realism so that it was
not too close to the reality that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The spirit of whose ancestors it has been humbly attempted to recapture." This is intended to make
the audience feel proud to be fighting for England as their ancestors did. Being produced during the
Second World War, many of the viewers may have had relatives out in battle. They had no clear idea
of the reality due to the lack of technology and communication. The light–hearted view of the battles
reassured the audience. It is shown very patriotically and heroically so the audiences would feel
good about the war and have felt proud to be English. The French in this film may have represented
the Germans in the war as the enemy. In the battle the enemy is shown as evil to make the audience
feel they're doing the right thing fighting evil. Branagh's film was set many years later when society
was more immune to shocking films and television programmes. He presents a dynamic king duped
into fighting a bloody, vicious war whose victory is undone within a generation. Olivier's version is
quite pro–war whereas Branagh's version seems very anti–war. This film portrays his negative
attitude to war by emphasising the realism of the battle. The gore and realistic fighting will have
shocked the audience and may have allowed them to consider the conditions in Vietnam. For
example in the battle of Agincourt, the close–up individual fighting will have made

Sir Laurence Olivier's Richard III versus Ian McKellan's...
Sir Laurence Olivier's Richard III versus Ian McKellan's Richard III
INTRODUCTION
It seems that modern Hollywood filmmakers are as much in love with Shakespeare's plays as were
the 16th century audiences who first enjoyed them. Recent updates of Hamlet (1996) and Romeo
and Juliet (1996), both highly successful movies, bear this out, as well as the two best film versions
of Richard III; Sir Laurence Olivier's 1954 "period piece", and Ian McKellan's more modern
interpretation (1995).
In McKellan's Richard III, we see Britain in the late 1930s, at the end of a savage civil war between
the House of York and the House of Lancaster. This version works for a number of reasons: 1) it is
made for a modern audience; 2) the social and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is done in the modern style, with lots of action and movement, primarily using existing buildings
as sets, instead of rebuilding them on soundstages. Every scene is alive with movement and detail, a
quality that is sadly lacking in Olivier's version. The setting is Britain, but a Britain very much of the
late 1930s. This much can be seen at once. Richard's opening soliloquy is broken in half; the first
half is spoken into a microphone before a crowd of merry–makers at King Edward IV's victory
celebration. However, just as Richard reaches "Grim–visag'd war has smoothed his wrinkled brow",
and the soliloquy becomes more a description of Richard's plans, we cut away to Richard, alone, in
the men's room––taking a piss. As Richard relieves himself, he continues his soliloquy. Clearly, the
movie is not above using anything––including Richard's bathroom habits––to move the story along.
A perfect fit for today's audiences.
2. Background
When Olivier made Richard III, he had to work within the bounds of the 1950s, which makes it
difficult for modern audiences (myself included, I'm ashamed to say) to stick with the movie until
the end. The things that get audiences going nowadays are basically sex and violence (hopefully
with a decent story keeping them together). Olivier's version has very little of the former, and I think
that he wouldn't have put them in even if he could. I have seen several of his movies, and he

Shakespeare's King Lear Essay
Discussion Write Up Day one of our discussion brought up the catharsis in King Lear (#4). I agreed
that with Gloucester's death there was not so much catharsis as there was sympathy and happiness.
As readers, I think we were happier to see Gloucester put out of his misery "Pluck out his poor eyes"
(3.7.58) and relieved at the fact that he died "smilingly" (5.3.201). I agreed that we readers were
happy about Edgar's ending since he had so much bad fortune throughout the play he deserved a
break, which came in the form of him inheriting power. I thought Joe's comment was interesting in
pointing out that both Edgar and Kent were at the bottom of the wheel at the start of the play with
Kent banished "Out of my sight" (1.1.157) by Lear simply ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Although the fool being brutally honest may not be that nice to Lear at least he is helping Lear
realize the choices he made were wrong. I found the question about why the fool disappears very
interesting and after thinking about it came to the conclusion that by the time he disappeared Lear
has realized his mistakes and now just needs to act to fix those mistakes, shifting all the
responsibility now to Lear. The poem was interesting (#7) and Maria making direct parallels to the
book helped me to make connections between the poem and book because previously I had not seen
how this poem represented the book. However, when Maria pointed out "He wants so much to say
please, but won't" directly represents the pride Lear holds in the book I started to see more
similarities. "Now he's been left alone" obviously represents Lear's 2 daughters, Goneril and Regan
no longer willing to house Lear. Also, "something he can't taste" to me represents his loss of one of
his senses however in the book it is his eye sight. Kathy had an interesting point I did not recognize
whatsoever before and that was the theme of nature which was present not only in the poem but in
King Lear and Hamlet. "Behind the hawthorn bushes", "the cold blast", and "the waste field of the
afternoon" reminded Kathy of the deterioration of nature in Hamlet. This idea can be related to the
use of nature in Edgar's tricking

Analysis Of William Shakespeare 's ' Sonnet 1 '
Unit 4 Journal C.S. Lewis, "Sonnet 1" (from Five Sonnets), pages 476–477 Shadow and Light This
sonnet brings to mind the feelings one has when faced with fear or loss. Lewis puts it beautifully
that we all grieve in different manners, but that our pain is the same. I feel that he makes a call for
people to be more understanding of others. That just because someone does not show the same
emotion as you, does not mean they do not feel. It means they feel in a different manner. Lewis also
says, "we do not shout and shake our fists at God"(p 476), to me this shows a deeper understanding
of life. We all can find someone or something to blame for problems or injustices in life, but until
we learn to put the blame where it lies we are doomed to feelings of pain and loss. Samuel Johnson,
excerpt from Prayers and Meditations, pages 25–27 Shadow and Light This selection is a bittersweet
plea from Johnson to God. His wife, 20 years his senior, has passed and he is obviously stricken
with grief. Johnson states, "Oh Lord, release me from my sorrow, fill me with just jopes, true faith,
and holy consolations, and enable me to do my duty in that state of life to which Thou hast been
pleased to call me, without disturbance from fruitless grief, or tumultuous imaginations;". This
speaks to his sorrow over the loss of his wife and his determination to continue on as is God's plan
for him. Johnson clearly was very much in love with his wife and even later states that he wishes to

The Lovely Bones, Othello And Rebecca Is Adultery
is an affair, Susie explains and hints throughout the novel as to why Len has the affair "If the case
was still open – in his mind it was blank. There was nothing on the back of mine, there was nothing
on the back of his wives." Unlike Mrs Danvers and Iago, the reader can relate and sympathise with
Lens situation as seen in the quote with the repetition of "Nothing" connoting a need for true love,
making less of a Iago, Mrs Danvers antagonist and more of simply an obstacle with gets in the way
of a relationship. One similarity however between Len and Mrs Danvers is that they have both lost
the one that they loved, nonetheless in an attempt to cope with this they react in vastly different
ways, though both destructive and emotionally scaring.
Another hindrance of true love as seen in The Lovely Bones, Othello and Rebecca is adultery. Third
party characters are seen launching the plot and the act of adultery is seen driving the plot into
motion leading to the story's climax.
As we see in Othello, the women of Venice are portrayed in this era as sexually driven and
untrustworthy. For example William Davis (1614) describes them as "Lude and wicked" It is this
contextual knowledge that is the reason for the quick mistrust of Desdemona, unlike in Rebecca for
example when the consensus at the time was one of a pure and perfect woman especially in Pre–war
England and the Angel in the house concept at its near conclusion but still in force. The mention of
adultery and seeds of

Three People That Stand Out As Leaders? Laurence Olivier,...
Three people that stand out as leaders include Laurence Olivier, Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., and Edith
Nourse Rogers. Laurence Olivier was born into a strict religious family in southern England around
the beginning of the 20th century. Olivier's schooling included acting and drama at the Central
School of Speech and Drama, which led to him joining the Birmingham Repertory company. After
taking multiple lead roles in many of Shakespeare's plays, he became a success, helping him become
the founding director of the Royal National Theatre (Biography.com Editors). Benjamin O. Davis,
Jr. career started at after graduating from the United States Military Academy at West Point where
he faced discrimination, most notably after applying for the Army ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Laurence Olivier leadership was primarily displayed after he became the founding director of the
Royal National Theatre. He demonstrated his headship by taking younger directors on board,
creating an opportunity that would usually be a "long–cherished dream" (Billington). Olivier
encountered many challenges, one of which included the loss his mother, while he was at a young
age, subsequently leading him to deal with his father's severity. These challenges helped develop
Olivier's leadership because his father was the one who pushed Olivier into acting (Biography.com
Editors). The successes that Olivier accomplished in his career included becoming the founding
director of the Royal National Theatre, becoming knighted by King George VI, and being elevated
to peerage by Queen Elizabeth II. Olivier also served as a pilot in World War II, mostly flying
training flights for gunners (Hurwitt). Laurence Olivier would receive a reception that would praise
him for his contribution to the theatre and the acting community. One lesson learned from the
leadership of Laurence Olivier would be to help others who may not have the chance otherwise to
participate. One question for Olivier would be why he thought of bringing on younger directors on.
This information provided would be beneficial in learning how one can implement different
leadership techniques and knowing when to be inclusive. One quality of Laurence Olivier that is
admirable is his ability to work through the struggles

Theme Of Honor In Henry The IV
Some argue that honor is the central theme of Henry the IV (part 1),after reading the play and
watching it I strongly agree with that statement. Throughout the play, the two main characters
Hotspur and Prince Hal desired to feel honored.Even though they didn't truly understand its value
and how to receive it in a precise way they still wanted to feel entitled. William Shakespeare never
gave the idea of honor a definition, he created a play that reflects honor through the three main
characters Prince Hal, Harry Percy also known as Hotspur and Sir John Falstaff personality rather
than giving the audience the definition.
In Henry the IV, Hotspur who is a critical and very organized person felt as though honor has to do
with glory when fighting on the battlefield and defending his country's reputation in doing so he
tests the king's power by refusing to give up his prisoners and offends him by saying he acts like a
prince (1.1.80). In order to stay true to his words he also decides to lead the rebellion against the
king, which personally I believe takes a lot of courage to go against an individual who has more
authority. I believe that if an individual is able to stand up to someone with higher power to prove
themselves, their the true definition of honor. Unlike Prince Harry and Falstaff, Hotspur spends his
free time in royalty to learn his how he can become a great leader. King Henry states that Hotspur is
"the theme of honor" (1.1.80) which indicates that he is the perfect

Character Analysis Of Henry V
¨When you feel valued, you feel important. When you feel equal, you feel as if you have more
opportunities.¨ Henry V demonstrated his ability to make all of his men feel valued and equal.
Although they are clearly of varying status, he still wanted them to feel valued and to have some
sort of freedom as to being equal. Henry V always thought that if someone sets their mind to
something, they will then be able to succeed. ¨God shall be his hope, each and every day. God is his
stay, his guide, and lantern to his feet.¨ Henry V was a great warrior. If you could name someone
that did not care if he were to get harmed, it would be Henry V Yet it would be his honor to bring
victory. He was a leader and had only one desire. He took any opportunities that came. Once he said
his mind to something, he was going to do it. Even if it meant putting his life on the line, the way he
thought about it was different. For him, it would just lead him and his men closer to success. As
human beings ourselves, we like to feel valued and equal. His men are no different than us. As a
human being, we have feelings. This meant Henry V wanted to have the ability to show his men that
if they put their life on the line, he shall do the same. Not many men who have other men to fight for
them, do what he does. He´s not afraid of death and only wants to lead others into success. Henry V
is a model of traditional heroism, but his value system is confusing. Henry V tends to paint a picture
of the future,

Essay on Falstaff in Henry IV Part I
The Character of Falstaff in Henry IV Part I
In Henry IV Part I, Shakespeare presents a collection of traditional heroes. Hotspur's laudable valor,
King Henry's militaristic reign, and Hal's princely transformation echo the socially extolled values
of the Elizabethean male. Molding themselves after societal standards, these flat characters contrast
Sir John Falstaff's round, spirited personality. Through Falstaff's unorthodox behavior and flagrant
disregard for cultural traditions, Shakespeare advocates one's personal values above society's.
Extolled as the "essence of Shakespeare's dramatic art" (Bloom 299) and ridiculed as the symbol of
self–indulgence and vice, the character of Sir John Falstaff, a loquacious knight, ... Show more
But Falstaff's "heavily charged.. magnetism..and wit" (Stoll 485), surpasses the unpropitious symbol
Wilson and Stoll translate him to be. Whereas Wilson contends that critics who laud Falstaff as one
of "the most fascinating characters in literature" (Wilson 11) have been "bewitched by the old rascal
[Falstaff]...and have contracted the disease of not listening to the play" (Wilson 11), other
commentators such as Rupin W. Desai, William Hazlitt, and Harold Bloom believe Falstaff typifies
all that "we long to be and are not: free" (Goddart 75). Falstaff's jocular nature and piercing insults
disguised as humor symbolize "the supremacy of imagination over fact" (Goddard 75). Falstaff's
essence invigorate the unfettered spirit of man that resents tyrannical oppression of the mundane and
preordained expectations of society.
Of all the characters in Part I of Henry IV, "Falstaff alone changes and develops" (Desai 15).
Whereas King Henry IV remains guilt–ridden, Hotspur's "passion for honour, reputation, and
chivalry blinds him to every other consideraion" (Desai 15). Likewise, Hal, ostensibly transformed
from rebellious youth to valiant hero, acknowledges his consistent "princely nature" is veiled by
"foul and ugly mists of vapor that...strangle him" (Act I Scene III). Falstaff, alone, adeptly weaves
among his static contemporaries. This eccentric behavior and refusal to comply with society's
prevailing practices provides him with mobility often

Histrionics In Shakespeare
This is the concluding post in a series marking Shakespeare's 400th death anniversary, which started
with noteworthy screen adaptations of some of his important tragedies (To Weep Or Not To Weep...
Part I and Part II) and comedies (All The World's A Laugh... Part I and Part II). Here we will look at
some screen interpretations of the Bard's chief historical histrionics.
As per experts, Shakespeare's historical plays consists of ten works: King John, Richard II, Henry
IV – Part I and Part II, Henry V, Henry VI – Part I, II and III, Richard III and Henry VIII. Though he
did not write them in the above order, the sequence is chronological in that it covers the rein of
seven English Kings spread over four centuries (twelfth to the sixteenth century). ... Show more
The theme of the film is betrayal and the story is an amalgamation of Shakespeare's plays: Henry IV
– Part 1 and Part 2, Henry V, Richard II, as well as The Merry Wives of Windsor. Welles considered
the film his best work and his favourite film.
One of the most interesting interpretations is "Theatre of Blood" (1973), a horror comedy by
Douglas Hickox. It stars Vincent Price as an actor who considers himself as the finest
Shakespearean actor ever but when he is not awarded the critic's choice for best actor he decides to
revenge his humiliation. He decides to kill the reviewer who gave him low ratings by basing each of
the murder on a classic Shakespearean death scene. For instance he executes a critic using hair
curlers while narrating a scene from Henry VI, Part 1 where Joan of Arc is ordered to be burnt.
"My Own Private Idaho" (1991) by Gus Van Sant is loosely based on Henry IV – Part 1 & Part 2 as
well as Henry V. It is the story of two friends, played by River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves, who are
gay prostitutes. Phoenix received several awards for his performance, including at the Venice

Comparison of an Evil mastermind in Shakespeare’s Othello...
Iago is one of the most renowned villains of pre–modern literature, as first introduced in
Shakespeare's Othello. His deceiving personality and complex nature is painted such that readers are
amazed by his ingenious schemes. At the beginning of Shakespeare's Othello, Iago is represented as
trustworthy and honest, but readers soon realize that he is the opposite of what he seems. Even
though Iago's personality and thoughts are revealed less in MacDonald's Goodnight Desdemona
(Good Morning Juliet), he carries on the same immoral legacy as in Othello. Throughout the plays,
he turns his friends against one another who look to him for guidance and support. Iago thirsts to
upgrade this status in society which causes him to take advantage of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Iago explains to Rodrigo that he does not serve Othello because it is it duty, he does so because he
feels he can exploit and take advantage of him. Iago believes that people who are what they seem
are foolish and says that "I am not what I am", which implies that he is also playing a deceitful game
with Rodrigo. Desdemona in MacDonald's Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) is
interpreted as a capable, independent, and even violent character who marries Othello because of her
passion for combat and conquest. Desdemona's character goes beyond the limits of breaking
feminine stereotypes and is seen as a savage who hungers violence. As a result of her rage–filled
personality, Desdemona is gullible and easily irritated by others. She looks for the evil in others and
searches for conflict. "In this Desdemona, Logos reigns, she exhibits primarily characteristics that
we have designated as 'masculine': love of horror and a desire for blood, violence, and vengeance"
(Snyder 49). Desdemona easily becomes jealous of others, which Iago takes advantage of. The
character of Desdemona is seen to break the stereotype of powerless women and goes to an extreme
of representing Desdemona as a violent female who is easily manipulated. The

Essay on Family Trust in William Shakespeare's Plays
Family Trust in William Shakespeare's Plays
Family is meant to care for each other, love each other unconditionally, and support each other. Of
course, as any holiday at home can prove, complete support is not always possible. Sometimes
family members hurt each other and even, in worst–case scenarios, kill each other over issues as
important as protecting another or as petty as fighting over a boy. In Shakespeare's Othello,
Macbeth, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, and The Winter's Tale, if family members operate
with selfish motives, they hurt the hero and contribute to his fall; but if the family supports each
other with only love, the hero can redeem himself from his fall and even succeed in finding lasting
happiness. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, while she does have genuine love for him, she also is power–hungry. If her husband
becomes King, she will be Queen, and the thought of such nobility entices her. Her wants are selfish
because they hurt Macbeth and she forces him to act through a combination of emasculation, saying,
"When you durst do it, then you were a man" (1.7.49), and sexual manipulation, drawing attention
to her breasts with, "I have given suck" (1.7.54). She never tells him to act because it will make him
happy or even to act because she loves him. Later in the play, she realizes her wrongs and goes mad.
The doctor remarks, "infected minds/To their deaf pillows will discharge their secrets" (5.1.62–63),
implying that she is sick in the head because of her wrong–doings. She obviously feels remorse
when she sleepwalks, trying to wash away the imaginary blood because she says, "Hell is murky"
(5.1.31), showing her fear of what fate she will meet after she dies. If her motives were only fused
with love and support for her husband, she would not have felt the compulsion to better her
hierarchal standing in society and would have been content to live as a noblewoman. Furthermore,
she would have seen that Macbeth has no initial want or need to kill and that his prophesy would
have been fulfilled without his own interference as Banquo's had been.
The story of Hamlet is filled with

The King's Character in a Cinematic Production of...
Although labeled as a history, the strength of Shakespeare's Henry V lies not in the events that occur
in the play, but in the delicate portrayal of the characters involved. Shakespeare's audience would
have already known the story of Henry V's campaign on France and thus would have had no reason
to watch a play that simply re–enacted past events. Therefore, the appeal of such a play, as well as
the themes and the content, would have been dependent largely on the characters themselves.
It is obvious that the most prominent character is the man whose name the play carries – Henry V.
The entire story centers on his deeds. He serves as the catalyst for the action, the driving force
behind all that takes place. Without him there is no ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The subtleties of such ambiguities make any direction a complex task as one tries to reconcile
conflicting viewpoints. In doing so, there are two widely respected cinematic versions of Henry V
that may be considered: Laurence Olivier's 1944 production and Kenneth Branagh's 1989 version.
Olivier's version is pure patriotism, while Branagh's is grittier and much darker. Olivier's is more
stylized and innocent, giving it a more chivalric and fairy–tale atmosphere. Branagh's, on the other
hand, is more realistic in its portrayal of Henry's invasion of France. However, as Shaw points out,
in each case the king emerges as the hero through cinematic and textual editing decisions. The most
glaring omission common to both is Henry's order to kill the French prisoners taken at the Battle of
Agincourt. This scene is omitted because it is one of those textual ambiguities that may leave an
audience of the original play uncertain as to the quality of man that the Henry is. This would have
been in opposition to both Branagh and Olivier's heroic depictions.
This would not, however, be the route chosen for this production. Henry V, as Norman Rabkin
describes it in Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning, is "a work whose ultimate power is
precisely the fact that it points in two opposite directions, virtually daring us to choose

Cinderella in a Black Dress
Cinderella in a Black Dress Goneril is not one of the evil stepsisters from Cinderella. Her many
faces, in fact, stem from the same source and are not as different as one may conceive. The truth lies
in one of her lines in Act 1, Scene 1. "There is further compliment of leave–taking between France
and him [Lear]. Pray you let's hit together. If our father carry authority with such disposition as he
bears, this last surrender of his will but offend us" (I, i, 331–4). The statement can be viewed as
somewhat selfish based on her use of the word "us". It really depends on whom she is referring to.
Since Lear has already divided the land between his two eldest daughters, it is safe to assume that
the "us" could be referring to Goneril and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is a commonality in female characters in antiquated and modern entertainment. Juliet, from
Romeo and Juliet, allows her emotions to take complete control of herself and ends up dead because
of her impulsiveness. Yet, something about Goneril is stronger and more developed. Goneril's
emotions are logical. She seems to know what she wants and to take action accordingly. She doesn't
allow the emotion to define her so much as the actual planning. When people think of Romeo and
Juliet, they will typically think about love and impulsive behavior. When people think of Hamlet
they think of his madness. And yet, with Goneril, people think about wickedness and betrayal,
which are very calculating labels. Goneril has to plan out every act she wishes to commit. She
doesn't have a Hamlet moment, in which she slips and murders Polonius. Goneril comes off as
composed up until her suicide, which is the only indication of how remorseful she actually is. She
seems relatively robotic through the play. Yet, if Cordelia were taken out of the play, Goneril might
not seem so antagonistic. Goneril has a right to feel frustrated and like she's losing her father as he
loses his mind. She has a right to feel frustrated about Lear's entourage invading her space and
hindering the development of the kingdom. However, Goneril goes too far. Goneril's ultimate
problem is that she does wear at least one mask, but it isn't the caring woman; it's the deceptive
traitor. No one

What Is The Similarities Between Hamlet And King Lear
Shakespeare's Hamlet and King Lear are not only exhibitions of human experience but also studies
in the spiritual life of man. Through these two plays Shakespeare has elaborately attempted to get a
meaning out of life, and not to show its mystery or madness despite the fact that madness as
simulation has been a source of fascination in these two tragedies. In Shakespeare's Madness and
Music, Kendra Preston Leonard says that Hamlet and King Lear ultimately focus on crises of family
and power and involve a recurring early modern trope: madness (1). Concerning madness, Foucault
says in Madness and Civilization, that it constitutes the knot more than the denouement, the peripety
rather than the final release (32). Foucault sheds light on the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the beginning, the audience may feel alienated towards him because of his harsh and selfish
treatment of Cordelia, his youngest daughter. But as the story unfolds, they pity and sympathize with
that powerful king who has started his journey of suffering and powerlessness because of Gonoril
and Regan's masked love towards him. In "Madness and Memory", Mazzaro says that later on the
heath, Lear indicates that his madness lies in recalling his injuries done on him by Goneril and
Regan (110). His sanity is questioned by Gonoril and Regan who refer to his age as a reason for his
inconsistency, but they also acknowledge the fact of his lack of awareness throughout his life. Regan

Essay about Role Reversal in King Lear
Role Reversal in King Lear
King Lear, known as one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies, deeply affects its audience by playing
out the destruction of two families. At the end of this play two of the protagonists, King Lear and his
loyal friend the Earl of Gloucester, die after having suffered through major injustices at the hands of
their own children. These characters' deaths are incredibly tragic because they are brought on by
their own actions instead of by the circumstances that surround them. Lear and Gloucester are not
bad men but rather good men that make the fatal mistake of not acting according to their positions in
life. In doing so, they ultimately force their children, Cordelia and Edgar respectively, to take on ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the 1985 production of this play starring Lawrence Olivier, Lear enters the opening scene
lovingly arm in arm with Cordelia. He then sits on his throne and has a large map of his kingdom
spread out on the floor before him. When he utters the words in 1.1.155, he unceremoniously throws
his crown onto the ground in the middle of the map. I thought this was excellent stage direction
because in this one movement he sets the tone for the problems that will come as a result of his
unthinking action.
Much like Lear, Gloucester opens the play by shunning his role – that of a father. He embarrasses
his illegitimate son, Edmund, when he says to Kent "I have so often blushed to acknowledge him
that now I am brazed to 't" (1.1.10–11). He then goes on to minimize his affection for his legitimate
son, Edgar, by saying that he ". . . is no dearer in my account" (1.1.20–21). A father has two choices
regarding a child conceived through an affair; he can either deny the child's existence or accept the
child into his family as one of his own. Gloucester lamely attempts both with Edmund. In addition,
his comment about Edgar send a mixed message regarding the son he considers his heir. In the
Olivier version of this play, the stage direction has Edmund standing nearby while Gloucester
converses with Kent. When Gloucester speaks the words in 1.1.10–11, he throws his arm around
Edmund's shoulder and laughingly taps him on the chest. The stage direction here works well
because the

The Wise Fools of Shakespeare
The Wise Fools of Shakespeare "Infirmity that decays the wise doth ever make a better fool" –
though uttered by one of his own characters Shakespeare does not seem to conform to this ideal. The
fools carved by Shakespeare in his plays showed no resemblance to the mentally and physically
challenged people who were treated as pets and used for amusement during the medieval period.
Rather Shakespeare's fools appear to be in the best of their wits when they are in possession of the
wisest minds. Fools whether in their rustic vigour displaying grotesque humour or in the forms of
the sophisticated court jesters with their polished puns occupied a substantial position in his plays.
Not only they added the element of humour but often alluded a ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
However the most mesmerizing of Shakespeare's fools touches his pieces in the form of the court
jesters with their precise and caustic wit fabricated by their well bred minds. These fools it is often
presumed were sketched from the models of the contemporary court jesters particularly influenced
by Tarlton and Armin the royal fools who were not only popular to the audience but also favorites of
the Queen herself. One of the foremost reasons of introduction of these jesters in his plays was to
impart them with the role of social–critics in the guise of their iridescent costumes. The royal fools
in spite of their acerbic tongue that blurted out many a comment against royalty were forgiven for
the obvious reasons of those statements being wrapped under their fooleries. Thus the jesters in his
plays acted as the representatives of Shakespeare, through whom he can show a glimpse of the real
face of the contemporary society to his audience. The first professional fool who made his way into
Shakespeare's plays is Touchstone in 'As you Like it' who is probably the most buoyant of his
jesters. From his pert speeches it can be assumed that he is serving his namesake, a touchstone
giving a peek of the real world in mid of all the dreamy romanticism. In the play upon their arriving

Sinless King Lear ? Essay
When one contemplates the essence of being a king, one imagines that a king would never want for
anything and that his later years would be carefree. In reading King Lear, one sees a seamier side of
life for a particular king. Lear draws the audience's attention to this in Act 3 when he cries out
pitifully, "I am a man / More sinned against than sinning." Although Lear undoubtedly made a huge
mistake when he divided his kingdom and banished two people who were very dear to him.
However, the sins his two ungrateful daughters committed against him far outweighed the wrongs
he had done to others.
After dividing the kingdom, Lear gave everything to his two elder daughters, only retaining the right
to keep his title ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The King's knights represented his status as king and criticizing them was an insult to Lear's pride
and a prick to his ego. In addition to the criticism, Goneril also insisted that Lear reduce the number
of his knights:
A little to disquantity your train, / And the reminders that shall still depend
To be such men as may besort your age, / Which know themselves and you (I.iv.245–249).
All that was left for Lear were his knights, and yet Goneril decided to strip these away from him as
well. This was like stripping away his title of King. Without his entourage, Lear would have nothing
left. What a tremendous lack of compassion Goneril showed to her father!
Lear, with a bruised heart, thought he knew what to do, so he turned away from Goneril to his other
daughter Regan for shelter. Yet, once again, he faced bitter disappointment. Regan cruelly decided
not to be at home when Lear came to visit. "Our father he hath writ, so hath our sister, / Of
differences, which I best thought it fit / To answer from our home" (I.iv.22–24). Regan was
extremely cruel in not wanting to welcome her father. Her father had loved her and nurtured her
since childhood and

Henry V Film Analysis
1. What are the principal differences between the two film versions of Shakespeare's Henry V in
terms of plot? How do these differences advance the plot of the particular films?
While both films follow the plot of the original play, there are several key differences in what each
film focuses on. For Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, the core of the story is Henry's growth as a man,
and his rejection of the immaturity of youth for the maturity of kingship. Thus, Henry's drinking
friends and their fractured relationship with the new king take up a significant portion of screen
time, leading up to the heartbreaking execution of Bardolph on Henry's orders. A quite literal death
of childhood and adolescence, but a necessary one. But the drunken peasants aren't the only
influence on Branagh's Henry; the English church also plays a crucial role in the young king's
development. From the very beginning, the church sways and manipulates the inexperienced Henry
into going to war, with the clergymen being framed as "devils on his shoulder" during the court
scene. Bardolph's execution is even ordered for his crimes against the church. For Branagh, the plot
is driven by Henry's battle between these influences and the choices he makes for his country. By
contrast, Olivier's Henry V is a triumphant romp, with a greater focus on comedy and the triumph of
England. The scene of the clergyman telling Henry of the Salic law is silly, with the assistant
dropping the scrolls and forgetting the names of the distant monarchs. This also continues with the
depiction of the French nobility as buffoonish, unthreatening ponces, and the many scenes of
peasants goofing around outside of battle. In this rendition, Henry seems even more regal than other
versions, with more emphasis on his victorious battles and rousing battle speeches. His conflict with
his old friends is extremely downplayed, and nearly all the references to treachery within the court
are removed. Instead of a character study of a conflicted young man, this Henry V is a story of noble
England and their righteous victory against the French; a simplistic tale of good triumphing over
evil.
2. Olivier and Branagh make the transition from the Globe theater backstage/stage to the "real"

Critical Writing Review Of Hamlet
Many people equate good critical writing with very descriptive writing when that is simply not true.
Good critical writing should not just be an in–depth description of a topic. Good critical writing
should include a clear presentation of your argument and your own evidence, a clear and confident
refusal to accept opposing conclusions from other critical writers, and a balanced presentation of
reasons why the conclusions of other writers may be accepted but are ultimately not correct. Many
people have written reviews about Kenneth Branagh's four–hour uncut movie production of Hamlet,
but I'm going to evaluate just four reviews to determine their credibility of being a critical writing
piece.
Alan Stone has written a drawn–out review of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In addition, Branagh did not add additional dialogue to indicate this scenario, but rather a silent cut
scene. In the end, Stone declares that "these criticisms are no more than quibbles about this glorious
film" (Stone). Alan Stone gives extensive background of Branagh's film, is clear about his opinion,
provides lots of evidence, and includes and refutes opposing views. Berardinelli has written a piece
that includes only his opinion with no critical reasoning or specific evidence. Berardinelli gives
background information on Hamlet itself when talking about how "legendary actors John Gielgud,
Richard Burton, and Laurence Olivier have taken the lead role" (Berardinelli). He also gives
background to Branagh's connection with Hamlet and how it "has been something of a private
obsession for Kenneth Branagh since the age of eleven" (Berardinelli). He then goes into a lengthy
synopsis of Hamlet. Berardinelli is not at all on the fence about his opinion; he states his argument
very clearly early on when he says "I do not make lightly, this latest version is not only the best
filmed adaption of Hamlet I have ever seen, but the best cinematic expression that I have come
across of any of Shakespeare's plays" (Berardinelli). Berardinelli adds evidence to support

Hamlet Movie Adaptation
Hamlet was written in 1609 by William Shakespeare; Shakespeare is one of the greatest poets and
playwrights. Since the original performance of Hamlet, there have been many movie adaptations.
Some of the many well–known film directors for these movies are Kenneth Branagh, Franco
Zeffirelli and Sir Laurence Olivier. From the above film directors, I will compare and contrast
Zeffirelli's production of Hamlet to the original Shakespeare's play Hamlet.
Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet is one of the sound versions of Hamlet. It was produced and starred
Mel Gibson in the late 1900s. Comparing the film version of Hamlet to the play, Zeffirelli has made
noticeable changes in the movie including some clothing choices and characters' reactions. He also
altered and cut lines from the original Shakespeare play.
Shakespeare centralized the theme of revenge in the ghost scene in Act 1 Scene 5 with the use of
literary devices. In the movie adaptation, Zeffirelli used a different approach to portray the theme,
without the use of any literary devices. He instead used costume choices, characters' reactions and
different word choices.
Zeffirelli used a creative way to portray Hamlet's father wearing a white shirt with black pants
instead of Shakespeare's choice of armour. He used this to show how Hamlet's father would look in
90's society. He made Hamlet wear black clothing throughout the movie to show that Hamlet was
the only one who cared and grieved throughout his mother's marriage and until his own death.
Zeffirelli changed the characters' reactions throughout the scenes. One of the character changes is
during Hamlet's father's ghost soliloquy. Instead of his father being projected as angry towards his
wife and his brother in the movie, he uses a calm tone. In the movie while Hamlet was listening to
his father, he should have looked angry and upset. Instead he had no emotions while listening to his
father. In the movie, he should have an angry tone and should be eager to plot revenge on who killed
his father, instead he did not talk throughout his father's death story. Zeffirelli chose this so that the
audience will wait and anticipate when Hamlet's anger will grow and his reaction during the scene.
With the removal and

Fatality In Othello

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Jessica Tanner

More from Jessica Tanner (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Fatality In Othello