English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[JeffChiang]

Hi, can you please check my Module A essay on Intertextual Perspectives (Julius Caesar & The Prince)? Thank you sooo much.

Spoiler

Despite the distinct context of each, a clear connection between the texts is their exploration of integrity as a facet of the human condition.

Analyse how the process of comparing Julius Caesar and The Prince refined your appreciation of integrity.

Despite differing contexts that formulate key values of humanity, the composers’ portrayal of political leadership are universal in disregarding the need for integrity in favour for stability. William Shakespeare’s play ‘Julius Caesar’ and Niccolo Machiavelli’s treatise ‘The Prince’ both establish the common motives of the composers’ zeitgeist by conveying the application of honour and morality, the divine order and manipulation in leadership within a turmoil political situation both in Elizabethan England and Renaissance Italy.

Only minimal consideration is required for upholding honour and morality to ensure one’s own political survival in a turmoil situation. Machiavelli exemplifies the manipulative needs of a leader in order to sustain a stable political system. 'If a ruler wants to survive, he'll have to learn to stop being good,' reinforces Machiavelli’s faith in malice as a foundation for maintaining social stability, abandoning moral righteousness utilising an unsympathetic didactic tone. This is made imperative in the disastrous political turmoil of Renaissance Italy where a leader must constantly renew their alliances and moral values in accordance to current events. The abolishment of the Republic of Florence forces Machiavelli to lose his advisory and hence is required to sacrifice moral integrity in order to maintain influence in the political sphere by supporting the monarchical Medici family. This is similarly portrayed in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, 'Set honour in one eye and death in the other' uses ethos and dramatic rhetoric to emphasise the cost of upholding honour. By opposing the social context of Elizabethan England where honour and morality are thought to be the perfect qualities of a leader, Shakespeare highlights the ramifications that lead to death. Brutus's embracement of honour ultimately leads to his downfall disregarding political survival. He serves as a key example of a good ruler of flawed humanity that Machiavelli denounces in their failure. Regardless of the varying context, both Machiavelli and Shakespeare emphasise the need to ignore honour and morality in order to survive.

The apprehension of the divine order is essential in political success, gaining not only stability but also integrity. Machiavelli's aphorism 'There is nothing more important than appearing to be religious' uses inartistic invention to highlight the vitality of divinity in the political survival of a stable leadership but also disregarding religious integrity. By gaining divine power, a leader has unquestionable rule such as the Pope who not only had control of the Papal States but also the entire Renaissance Europe with the King of Spain and France aligned with his Catholic beliefs. This comes to the notion that divinity cannot be challenged as it does not require reasoning in achieving its aims. Shakespeare portrays the application of Machiavellian ideals in Julius Caesar. ‘I do know but one That unassailable holds on his rank,’ emphasises Caesar’s destruction of the divine order through third person flattery that leads to his death. Despite Caesar’s ignorance of integrity to sustain political stability, he fails to wield religious power in order to act unquestionably. Shakespeare expresses the loss of religion as disastrous for a ruler alluding to Queen Elizabeth who was both Head of the Church of England and the Tudor monarch allowing her to manipulate divine power to her own political desires. Caesar’s failure to achieve both reveals the importance of Machiavelli’s notions of religion. Hence, the differing contexts of Elizabethan England and Renaissance Italy both accentuate the need to apprehend divine power in political success.


Manipulation is an essential component of political leadership in maintaining power without human integrity. Machiavelli's anthropocentric humanist views considering humans as the central element of existence above God accentuates his immoral values in the importance of political manipulation. He upholds the scheming, venomous politician Cesare Borgia, revering his audacity to enforce brutality when necessary. Borgia becomes a key ideal in the didactic aphorism “opponents with their cunning…achieved more than leaders who behaved honestly” to demonstrate the vitality of a manipulative nature. Only when moral values of orthodox Christian ideology are rejected does a leader become ultimately successful in manipulation to employ cruelty when necessary in order to maintain power. Shakespeare exemplifies an ideal manipulative leader in Mark Antony in the anaphoric repetition of 'Brutus was an honourable man' spoken in sophisticated verse in order to sway public opinion to make his honour tokenistic. Following Machiavelli's aphorism, the cunningness of Antony outperforms Brutus's honest approach in leadership exemplifying the importance of manipulation and challenging Roman virtue. Thus Shakespeare ambiguously parallels to Queen Elizabeth who was ruthless in persecuting Catholics utilising manipulation in order to maintain power as the virgin queen. Therefore the necessity of manipulation is upheld in order to survive in turmoil political situations.

Through the context of turmoil political situations, the notions of honour and morality, the divine order and manipulation are explored in Machiavelli's 'The Prince' and Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. The zeitgeist of the composers highlights the universal nature of political leadership, disregarding the need for integrity despite the differing contexts that shape human values.

[tracytruong]

Hi! I was wondering if you could please read over my analysis for Module A & C and provide me with some feedback please.
Thankyou!!

[sidzeman]

Hey there Apologies for the delay - with the head start lectures over the weekend we're just getting back on our feet now. Your concerns about module A aren't only felt by you, don't worry I'll have a look at it and see what we can find

Spoiler

A comparative study of Fritz Lang’s German Expressionist film “Metropolis” and George Orwell’s dystopian novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” (1984) both reveals the extent to which context shapes the perspectives inherent in both Small thing - but the second time you've said "both" in this sentence so delete this one. texts, and also elucidates new insights regarding technological oppression and the viability of revolutions. Both texts explore the contextual fear of technology used as a mechanism by governments to exploit the masses, due to the contextual second use of contextual, delete one
  issues of class struggle in the Weimar Republic and the rise of totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union. However, the texts have there are * No need to say the texts when you're about to say intertextual clashing intertextual perspectives regarding the viability of revolutions in addressing societal inequalities, as the bleakness of the WW2 era leads Orwell to represent revolutions as being ultimately futile. Thus, the comparison of the texts context and thus values allows for an in-depth understanding of the similarities and differences in their intertextual perspectives regarding technology and rebellions. I think this introduction would benefit from being raked back and then re-written with more clarity. Some areas are somewhat tautologous and others just don't flow well. It seems you haven't shown you know what an intertextual perspective is, but rather you've said it exists and that's why Orwell has shaped his text the way he did.

Both Lang and Orwell explore in their respective texts the use of technology to exploit the lower classes, and so enhances the audiences understanding of the double-edged nature of technology. In “Metropolis”, Fredersen applies technology in his industry to dehumanise the proletariats, as demonstrated through the low angle shot of the Moloch Machine, highlighting its power over the exhausted workers.   However, the juxtaposition of these scenes to the above ground cities surreal scale reveals how Fredersen’s creation of an immense and futuristic city has stemmed from his use of technology as an enforcer of oppression of the workers. The link isn't clear here. Juxtaposition shows how someone is inspired by technology as an oppressor - it doesn't really click. Perhaps you mean that the juxtaposition mirrors Lang's own understanding of two paralleling realities? I don't know the text well enough to work out exactly what you should say, but we need a little more work on this bit here This dichotomous perspective of technology is a result of Lang’s context, where technology had both been used for destruction in WW1, and yet also was causative of the golden age of the Weimar Republic. Ok it makes a bit more sense here, but it still needs some work to get to the point quicker than two sentences later The sharp contrast between Maria and her Robot counterpart also strengthens our understanding of technology as the pinnacle of human achievement, which yet can be a serious threat to societal rights if misused. While Maria is presented as pure and virginal how?, the religious allusion of the Whore of Babylon is used in reference to Robot Maria, an example of how technology can be used to corrupt. Thus, Lang demonstrates how technology can be utilised to oppress the masses to ensure the wealthy retain control.

However, Orwell presents a far deeper mistrust of technology and its ability to be manipulated by the state to maintain dictatorial rule, as demonstrated through his portrayal of the Party which removes individual liberty through constant surveillance. In his novel, the extensive use of the technology of the “telescreen” means citizens “can be seen as well as heard” at all times, leading them to be divorced from their own individuality as they must “live in the assumption that…every movement was scrutinised”. Furthermore, the telescreens are also constantly used for propaganda such as the “Two Minutes Hate”, similar to the anti-Semitic rallies by the Nazi Party, which are “impossible to avoid joining in”. The inability to resist such propaganda indicates the forced abandonment of independent thought in favour of the Party’s dogmas as a result of technological manipulation. Orwell’s much darker perspective on technology is a direct result of his witnessing of the nuclear bomb, the ultimate perversion of technology and its ability to be used to benefit society. Thus, Orwell expresses a much more serious concern for the advancement of technology, due to his recognition of its potential to subdue individual thought. There's analysis here in that you are analysing the plot, but you have not analysed the textual features at all. As a rule of thumb (and yes, rules are meant to be broken sometimes), I'd be making sure every time there is a quote there is a TECHNIQUE and then and analysis to ensue afterwards. You've said what Orwell has done, but not HOW he has done it

Lang portrays in his film the potential of an oppressed populous to resolve their exploitation through a rebellion. The mis-en-scene of Maria preaching to the workers reveals the ray of sunlight bathing Maria, contrasted to the otherwise darkened underground cavern, which symbolises her importance and thus grants her presentation of an egalitarian society greater credibility. Her message of class unity was reflective of the rising popularity of Marxist ideas in Germany at the time.  The final shot of Freder clasping the hands of Grot and Fredersen, after the revolution is finished, completes the extended metaphor of “the mediator between the head and the hands must be the heart”, and is a visual representation of the formation of the Golden Age of the democratic Weimar Republic. Thus, Lang’s attests to the ability of revolutions to resolve societal issues in his film. Much better in terms of analysis! You've also answered the question really well.

Contrastingly, Orwell presents an entirely different perspective on revolutions, portraying them as an unsuccessful answer in addressing the injustices of governments. Great link between the texts! He utilises the didactic device of Goldstein’s book, which states revolutionary’s  revolutionaries*
 simply “thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude” after their revolution is complete, as they only “pretend…that they are fighting for liberty and justice”. Through this, Orwell condemns revolutions as being hypocritical and impractical, as no meaningful change is created in society. This perspective of Orwell is drawn from the atrocities of the Soviet Union after coming to power, such as Stalin’s Great Purge. The verbatim repetition of “I betrayed you” and “All you care about is yourself” between Winston and Julia further consolidates the inevitable failure of revolutionaries, as does the final line of “He (Winston) loved Big Brother”, ending the novel on a bleak and hopeless tone. The stark differences in the texts possessive apostrophe needed here <<< resolutions is a result of their differing contexts and purpose. While Lang intended “Metropolis” to be a symbol of hope for society untainted by the greed of capitalists, Orwell’s purpose was to create a didactic dystopian novel which would serve as a warning of the insidious nature of socialism and the dangers of accepting such ideologies, after seeing a rise in cooperation with Stalin with the Tehran Conference. Thus, Orwell’s contrary portrayal of revolutions as being futile serves his intention of warning against the absolute control and corruption of totalitarian states.
Just note that the italicised bit here is three sentences without textual analysis, but instead discussion. Simply because your analysis isn't super strong at this point, I'd do my best to cull this to two sentences to make sure you're not washing out the analysis you do have.
A comparative analysis of Lang’s “Metropolis” and Orwell’s “1984” assists us on understanding the effect of their contexts on shaping the values of a text, and also illuminates both the unique qualities and similarities of the two texts. Both composers share similar perspectives on technology being utilised as a means by authoritarian regimes to enable their dictatorship, due to the parallels of technology modernisation allowing exploitation within their contexts. The disparities in the outcome of key revolutions in “Metropolis” and “1984”, with the rise of the Golden Age of the Weimar Republic and the hypocritical actions of the Soviet Union, thus leads the texts to portray differing perspectives on the viability of revolutions in addressing inequalities present in society.

I don't doubt for a second that you know these texts well, so when I say your analysis needs a bit of work it isn't going to be devastating for you. You know the texts well, it's just about how you're writing it. And we can do something about this! When I'm editing my own work I look at every sentence and ask "does this either provide textual analysis, or directly answer the question?" If it does neither, it's gone. If it only answers the question, I check that the sentence either side of it is on topic and analytical. If not, then I know I've gone on a little non-analytical tangent. There are times when this is appropriate, like if the rest of your essay was super analytically dense, but in this situation we need to look closely at places like your second body paragraph and decide where to insert the textual analysis. You are drawing excellent connections between the texts, I'm not even a tiny bit concerned by the way you're approaching the module! For me, it is purely in the analysis.

ahhh I see thank you so much. I'd forgotten sentence that make sense in your head because you know what you were talking about really don't actually make sense when considered from a markers perspective haha I'll be sure to change that around, as well as add some more clear analysis.
However, I'm still slightly unclear on what you said about me not demonstrating I know that a intertextual perspective is in the introduction - could you help me with understanding how to do that?

[Potatohater]

Am I right in my understanding that we are trying to shift all essay marking to the essay marking and feedback board? Because that's where I've uploaded my two essays for marking.

[jamonwindeyer]

Am I right in my understanding that we are trying to shift all essay marking to the essay marking and feedback board? Because that's where I've uploaded my two essays for marking.

I see em - On the list

Hi! I was wondering if you could please read over my analysis for Module A & C and provide me with some feedback please.
Thankyou!!

You'll need to post around the site a bit more before a moderator can read this for you! See this post

[jamonwindeyer]

Hello! Would appreciate feedback on my generic Mod A Essay plan.

Hey! I'll give you feedback on this throughout like I would an essay

Spoiler

An examination of the intertextual connections between texts facilitates a deepened understanding of a composer’s values, which are represented different due to the dynamic nature of context. Good Thesis, addresses the module well. In particular focus, the reshaping of values such as integrity and humility in Shakespeare’s KRIII and Al Pacino’s LFR reveals the influence of religion and the Tudor myth in the representation of themes such as duplicity and the pursuit of power. A few things at play here, make sure you hone in on the bits relevant to whatever question is in front of you. Watch expression in the real thing.
Topic Sentence 1 (Integrity):
General: Through a study of intertextual connections, a deepened understanding of the dehumanising effects of relinquishing one’s integrity in order to fulfil the insatiable lust for power is attained – despite the dynamic perspectives of the importance of integrity as context shifts. The expression isn't the best here, I think it could be made more concise and more clear, but the idea is great.
Grounding (S): The value of integrity is intrinsic to the theocentric society of Shakespeare’s milieu as it enforces the Christian mindset of staying true to oneself in their thoughts and actions. Hence, Shakespeare’s characterises Richard as the perfect Machiavellian villain, abandoning any notion of traditional Christian morality to maximise personal gain.
Grounding (P):  Conversely, the 20th century notion secularism has allowed Pacino to portray Richard in LFR as the result of the desire of the self-made man, who in a world filled with corruption must concede their integrity to fulfil selfish motivations. You would probably not want both of these at the start of the paragraph, it creates too long of a buffer between the start and analysis.
Evidence:
1.     Richard’s absence of integrity in his pursuit to achieve the crown of England is established through Shakespeare's use of soliloquy. The opening soliloquy, in particular, reveals to the audience Richard’s “determination to prove a villain”, thus revealing his “subtle, false and treacherous” nature. Note: Relate to Edward if ‘relationships’ Like that you are making notes on how to deal with certain prompts. Be sure your analysis is concept focused, not character focused.
·      Pacino re-enacts the opening soliloquy, utilising chiaroscuro lighting - a constrast of shadow and light - to emphasise the transgression of duplicitous nature through time, applicable to the 20th century “politicians, complete with their innuendos and lies”. The parallelism allows modern audiences to relate the motives of Richard to the self-made man. Great consideration of modern context - Like that you are structuring your notes comparatively.
2.     Shakespeare further elucidates Richard’s innate lack of integrity through the Lady Anne scene, with Richard admitting “[he] will not keep her long”. The dramatic irony enables the audience to first hand witness Richard’s ease of manipulation and abuse of the Christian sacrament of marriage; his soul is so damaged and lacking in integrity that he does not stop to question his morals.
·      The docudrama form allows for explanatory intermissions in Pacino’s reconstruction of Richard’s wooing of Anne. The sardonic intercut of “HA!” after Anne’s submission reflects the cunning nature of the tragic hero in his attempt to fulfil his political potential. Through this, modern audiences are alerted to the transcendence  of manipulative individuals through time. Doing a great job considering the importance of Pacino's adaptation, but you are analysing in a very character focused way - Be careful!
3.     Shakespeare exaggerates Richard’s failure to maintain his shattered identity. In the climax, Richard’s deteriorated conscience is personified to “[have] a thousand separate tongues”. The “tongues”, a religious allusion to the Holy Spirit, perpetuate the degradation of Richard’s conscience under divine retribution – a core theocentric belief at the time.
·      Pacino adopts the dual role of both director and actor, emulating the potential for duplicity in the “everyday” man, and ultimately assumes the identity of Richard himself. The pastiche of alternating cuts and shots blends the identity of actor and character – evoking empathy from modern audiences regarding the absence of integrity in the self-made man, as Pacino is very much so. Excellent consideration of both contexts.

Topic sentence 2 (Humility): In disregarding a sense of humility, human nature prompts individuals to challenge authoritative figures and ideologies through foul tactics with intentions of asserting their own authority, this resulting in an immoral, condemnable identity. I'm not quite clicking with the link to humility here, as in, I feel you take that first part out and it really doesn't change the Thesis at all?
Grounding (S): The zeitgeist of Shakespeare’s theocentric Elizabethan Era was greatly defined by the notion of providentialism, a belief that one’s fate is tied to the will of God. Thus, Shakespeare characterises Richard to oppose it, warning audiences of the dangers of dismissing one’s sense of humility and thus their preordained destinies.
Grounding (P): Conversely, Pacino re-contextualises Richard’s motives as the product of postmodern emphasis on the self-made man, urging audiences to empathise with Richard’s relinquishing of humility in his quest for domination. As above, condense this sort of background explanation as much as possible, or embed it throughout your textual analysis!
Evidence:
1.     Due to the Great Chain of Being - a religious hierarchy imposed upon Shakespeare’s theocentric society – Richard is physically characterised as ‘deformed, unfinished and half-made’. Through natural cause one is ordained their place in society, and despite being of regal blood, Richard is despised by the Elizabethan audience and granted minimal natural authority. What does this say about the concept?
·       Further affirming the importance of humility in a postmodern context, Pacino employs academic Emry Jones, who intertextually alludes to Pacino’s role in The Godfather, referring to Richard as a “gangster”. Rather than undermining divine authority, Pacino challenges the authority of the government, allowing modern audiences to understand that despite changing times, that the corruption elicited by an absence of humility is still existent.
2.     The theatrical medium of Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre prompted the use of dramatics, particularly Richard’s double-crossing of Buckingham. Great to see you acknowledge this aspect of the initial context, it is really often forgotten! The Elizabethan audience is well are of the totalitarianism Richard exhibits, refusing to provide Buckingham with ‘Th’earldom of Hereford’. Yet, due to his illegitimacy in achieving this rule, Shakespeare’s audience is positioned to recognise Richard’s utmost absence of humility – willing to absolve ties with his closest allies to ensure the dominance of his authority.
·      Rather, a 20th century focus on psychoanalysis introduced through the works of Sigmund Freud saw Pacino utilise the docudrama form, layering the voiceover “The emptiness of it…” to echo the dehumanising effects of the manipulation of authority and power on one’s conscience. However, contemporary audiences are positioned to find this ironic as Pacino himself frequently asserts his authority over other production and cast members, with Kimball remarking ‘You thinking you know more than any scholar in England is f*cking ridiculous!’. What technique is used here? Try to have techniques next to EVERY quote!
3.     Shakespeare introduces the virtuous foil character of Richmond to exemplify that the dismissal of one’s humility will lead to defeat. Richmond is aligned with the goodness of God, praying “that we may praise thee (God) in thy victory”, representative of the theocentric ideology of the triumph of God against evil. Technique? Thus, Shakespeare exemplifies the importance of adhering to the Elizabethan ideologies of his time.
·      Conversely, Richmond’s role in the defeat of Richard is minimised in Looking For Richard, his screen presence diminished to a couple of seconds.  Rather, a postmodern cinematic focus on action-packed and battle is evident through the panning shots and the blood-stained filter. Through this, Pacino plays on the modern adage ‘All is fair in love and war’, reflecting of the postmodern understanding necessity to omit one’s humility in order to gain power. Yet, it is clear through Richard’s gruelling defeat that perhaps a sense of humility is necessary in facilitating a holistic human experience.
 

I think you've got some good preparation here! Fantastic consideration of module objectives. Make sure you are analysing concepts, not characters, and make sure your prep isn't too rigid - Be ready to ditch your prepared sentences to respond properly to curveballs. Also make sure every quote has a technique as much as possible!

EDIT: Just making sure I have enough posts to post another essay soon. Thank you!

You do have enough for another

[winstondarmawan]

Hey! I'll give you feedback on this throughout like I would an essay

Spoiler

An examination of the intertextual connections between texts facilitates a deepened understanding of a composer’s values, which are represented different due to the dynamic nature of context. Good Thesis, addresses the module well. In particular focus, the reshaping of values such as integrity and humility in Shakespeare’s KRIII and Al Pacino’s LFR reveals the influence of religion and the Tudor myth in the representation of themes such as duplicity and the pursuit of power. A few things at play here, make sure you hone in on the bits relevant to whatever question is in front of you. Watch expression in the real thing.
Topic Sentence 1 (Integrity):
General: Through a study of intertextual connections, a deepened understanding of the dehumanising effects of relinquishing one’s integrity in order to fulfil the insatiable lust for power is attained – despite the dynamic perspectives of the importance of integrity as context shifts. The expression isn't the best here, I think it could be made more concise and more clear, but the idea is great.
Grounding (S): The value of integrity is intrinsic to the theocentric society of Shakespeare’s milieu as it enforces the Christian mindset of staying true to oneself in their thoughts and actions. Hence, Shakespeare’s characterises Richard as the perfect Machiavellian villain, abandoning any notion of traditional Christian morality to maximise personal gain.
Grounding (P):  Conversely, the 20th century notion secularism has allowed Pacino to portray Richard in LFR as the result of the desire of the self-made man, who in a world filled with corruption must concede their integrity to fulfil selfish motivations. You would probably not want both of these at the start of the paragraph, it creates too long of a buffer between the start and analysis.
Evidence:
1.     Richard’s absence of integrity in his pursuit to achieve the crown of England is established through Shakespeare's use of soliloquy. The opening soliloquy, in particular, reveals to the audience Richard’s “determination to prove a villain”, thus revealing his “subtle, false and treacherous” nature. Note: Relate to Edward if ‘relationships’ Like that you are making notes on how to deal with certain prompts. Be sure your analysis is concept focused, not character focused.
·      Pacino re-enacts the opening soliloquy, utilising chiaroscuro lighting - a constrast of shadow and light - to emphasise the transgression of duplicitous nature through time, applicable to the 20th century “politicians, complete with their innuendos and lies”. The parallelism allows modern audiences to relate the motives of Richard to the self-made man. Great consideration of modern context - Like that you are structuring your notes comparatively.
2.     Shakespeare further elucidates Richard’s innate lack of integrity through the Lady Anne scene, with Richard admitting “[he] will not keep her long”. The dramatic irony enables the audience to first hand witness Richard’s ease of manipulation and abuse of the Christian sacrament of marriage; his soul is so damaged and lacking in integrity that he does not stop to question his morals.
·      The docudrama form allows for explanatory intermissions in Pacino’s reconstruction of Richard’s wooing of Anne. The sardonic intercut of “HA!” after Anne’s submission reflects the cunning nature of the tragic hero in his attempt to fulfil his political potential. Through this, modern audiences are alerted to the transcendence  of manipulative individuals through time. Doing a great job considering the importance of Pacino's adaptation, but you are analysing in a very character focused way - Be careful!
3.     Shakespeare exaggerates Richard’s failure to maintain his shattered identity. In the climax, Richard’s deteriorated conscience is personified to “[have] a thousand separate tongues”. The “tongues”, a religious allusion to the Holy Spirit, perpetuate the degradation of Richard’s conscience under divine retribution – a core theocentric belief at the time.
·      Pacino adopts the dual role of both director and actor, emulating the potential for duplicity in the “everyday” man, and ultimately assumes the identity of Richard himself. The pastiche of alternating cuts and shots blends the identity of actor and character – evoking empathy from modern audiences regarding the absence of integrity in the self-made man, as Pacino is very much so. Excellent consideration of both contexts.

Topic sentence 2 (Humility): In disregarding a sense of humility, human nature prompts individuals to challenge authoritative figures and ideologies through foul tactics with intentions of asserting their own authority, this resulting in an immoral, condemnable identity. I'm not quite clicking with the link to humility here, as in, I feel you take that first part out and it really doesn't change the Thesis at all?
Grounding (S): The zeitgeist of Shakespeare’s theocentric Elizabethan Era was greatly defined by the notion of providentialism, a belief that one’s fate is tied to the will of God. Thus, Shakespeare characterises Richard to oppose it, warning audiences of the dangers of dismissing one’s sense of humility and thus their preordained destinies.
Grounding (P): Conversely, Pacino re-contextualises Richard’s motives as the product of postmodern emphasis on the self-made man, urging audiences to empathise with Richard’s relinquishing of humility in his quest for domination. As above, condense this sort of background explanation as much as possible, or embed it throughout your textual analysis!
Evidence:
1.     Due to the Great Chain of Being - a religious hierarchy imposed upon Shakespeare’s theocentric society – Richard is physically characterised as ‘deformed, unfinished and half-made’. Through natural cause one is ordained their place in society, and despite being of regal blood, Richard is despised by the Elizabethan audience and granted minimal natural authority. What does this say about the concept?
·       Further affirming the importance of humility in a postmodern context, Pacino employs academic Emry Jones, who intertextually alludes to Pacino’s role in The Godfather, referring to Richard as a “gangster”. Rather than undermining divine authority, Pacino challenges the authority of the government, allowing modern audiences to understand that despite changing times, that the corruption elicited by an absence of humility is still existent.
2.     The theatrical medium of Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre prompted the use of dramatics, particularly Richard’s double-crossing of Buckingham. Great to see you acknowledge this aspect of the initial context, it is really often forgotten! The Elizabethan audience is well are of the totalitarianism Richard exhibits, refusing to provide Buckingham with ‘Th’earldom of Hereford’. Yet, due to his illegitimacy in achieving this rule, Shakespeare’s audience is positioned to recognise Richard’s utmost absence of humility – willing to absolve ties with his closest allies to ensure the dominance of his authority.
·      Rather, a 20th century focus on psychoanalysis introduced through the works of Sigmund Freud saw Pacino utilise the docudrama form, layering the voiceover “The emptiness of it…” to echo the dehumanising effects of the manipulation of authority and power on one’s conscience. However, contemporary audiences are positioned to find this ironic as Pacino himself frequently asserts his authority over other production and cast members, with Kimball remarking ‘You thinking you know more than any scholar in England is f*cking ridiculous!’. What technique is used here? Try to have techniques next to EVERY quote!
3.     Shakespeare introduces the virtuous foil character of Richmond to exemplify that the dismissal of one’s humility will lead to defeat. Richmond is aligned with the goodness of God, praying “that we may praise thee (God) in thy victory”, representative of the theocentric ideology of the triumph of God against evil. Technique? Thus, Shakespeare exemplifies the importance of adhering to the Elizabethan ideologies of his time.
·      Conversely, Richmond’s role in the defeat of Richard is minimised in Looking For Richard, his screen presence diminished to a couple of seconds.  Rather, a postmodern cinematic focus on action-packed and battle is evident through the panning shots and the blood-stained filter. Through this, Pacino plays on the modern adage ‘All is fair in love and war’, reflecting of the postmodern understanding necessity to omit one’s humility in order to gain power. Yet, it is clear through Richard’s gruelling defeat that perhaps a sense of humility is necessary in facilitating a holistic human experience.
 

I think you've got some good preparation here! Fantastic consideration of module objectives. Make sure you are analysing concepts, not characters, and make sure your prep isn't too rigid - Be ready to ditch your prepared sentences to respond properly to curveballs. Also make sure every quote has a technique as much as possible!

You do have enough for another

Thanks heaps Jamon!
Can you please clarify what you mean I'm not quite clicking with the link to humility here, as in, I feel you take that first part out and it really doesn't change the Thesis at all?

[Savas_P]

got to 50 posts but don't have any essay ready to ask for feedback. I am struggling here, was going to create generic essays to memorise, how would I cover all the information so it is ready for any question?

so if I go with learning a quote and the techniques, I usually do this. how many should I aim for? so with mod a Julius Caesar/the prince can I just learn a quote in each text for leadership, politics and morality. then just keep the essay question in mind when writing the paragraphs. still I have problems making sure it answers the question, but I don't have too much time to learn too many quotes.

also should I still memorise a stylish intro?

[jamonwindeyer]

b]I'm not quite clicking with the link to humility here, as in, I feel you take that first part out and it really doesn't change the Thesis at all?[/b]

Meaning, I don't get the point of having humility in that sentence. I don't see how it links to the rest of the sentence or to the other ideas you present

got to 50 posts but don't have any essay ready to ask for feedback. I am struggling here, was going to create generic essays to memorise, how would I cover all the information so it is ready for any question?

so if I go with learning a quote and the techniques, I usually do this. how many should I aim for? so with mod a Julius Caesar/the prince can I just learn a quote in each text for leadership, politics and morality. then just keep the essay question in mind when writing the paragraphs. still I have problems making sure it answers the question, but I don't have too much time to learn too many quotes.

also should I still memorise a stylish intro?

With time short, I'd focus on just memorising quotes and techniques - You can make up everything else as you go! Try and memorise as many quotes/techniques as you can (within reason), ideally you've got 3 or 4 per paragraph so you want to remember a solid dozen per module!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi, can you please check my Module A essay on Intertextual Perspectives (Julius Caesar & The Prince)? Thank you sooo much.

Sure thing Jeff!!

Spoiler

Despite the distinct context of each, a clear connection between the texts is their exploration of integrity as a facet of the human condition.

Analyse how the process of comparing Julius Caesar and The Prince refined your appreciation of integrity.

Despite differing contexts that formulate key values of humanity, the composers’ portrayal of political leadership are universal in disregarding the need for integrity in favour for stability. I feel the wording is a bit off at the start there, but I like the idea. I don't think contexts 'formulate' key values is the issue. William Shakespeare’s play ‘Julius Caesar’ and Niccolo Machiavelli’s treatise ‘The Prince’ both establish the common motives of the composers’ zeitgeist by conveying the application of honour and morality, the divine order and manipulation in leadership within a turmoil political situation both in Elizabethan England and Renaissance Italy. A little short, I'd like you to expand more on the aims/applications of the module. But sound, does its job.

Only minimal consideration is required for upholding honour and morality to ensure one’s own political survival in a turmoil situation. Again I think the wording isn't quite right there - Only minimal consideration is "given to upholding..." maybe? Machiavelli exemplifies the manipulative needs of a leader in order to sustain a stable political system. 'If a ruler wants to survive, he'll have to learn to stop being good,' reinforces Machiavelli’s faith in malice as a foundation for maintaining social stability, abandoning moral righteousness utilising an unsympathetic didactic tone. Technique there? This is made imperative in the disastrous political turmoil of Renaissance Italy where a leader must constantly renew their alliances and moral values in accordance to current events. The abolishment of the Republic of Florence forces Machiavelli to lose his advisory and hence is required to sacrifice moral integrity in order to maintain influence in the political sphere by supporting the monarchical Medici family. You definitely need more techniques/analysis here, rather than broad contextual commentary, to sustain better analysis. This is similarly portrayed in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, 'Set honour in one eye and death in the other' uses ethos and dramatic rhetoric to emphasise the cost of upholding honour. Good. By opposing the social context of Elizabethan England where honour and morality are thought to be the perfect qualities of a leader, Shakespeare highlights the ramifications that lead to death. Brutus's embracement of honour ultimately leads to his downfall disregarding political survival. Retell. He serves as a key example of a good ruler of flawed humanity that Machiavelli denounces in their failure. Regardless of the varying context, both Machiavelli and Shakespeare emphasise the need to ignore honour and morality in order to survive. Good links drawn between texts, but more techniques/analysis needed to push into the high range.

The apprehension of the divine order is essential in political success, gaining not only stability but also integrity. Good concept. Machiavelli's aphorism 'There is nothing more important than appearing to be religious' uses inartistic invention to highlight the vitality of divinity in the political survival of a stable leadership but also disregarding religious integrity. By gaining divine power, a leader has unquestionable rule such as the Pope who not only had control of the Papal States but also the entire Renaissance Europe with the King of Spain and France aligned with his Catholic beliefs. Commas to break up your longer thoughts would be beneficial. This comes to the notion that divinity cannot be challenged as it does not require reasoning in achieving its aims. Shakespeare portrays the application of Machiavellian ideals in Julius Caesar. ‘I do know but one That unassailable holds on his rank,’ emphasises Caesar’s destruction of the divine order through third person flattery that leads to his death. Try to go beyond the characters and plot when analysing effects! Despite Caesar’s ignorance of integrity to sustain political stability, he fails to wield religious power in order to act unquestionably. Shakespeare expresses the loss of religion as disastrous for a ruler alluding to Queen Elizabeth who was both Head of the Church of England and the Tudor monarch allowing her to manipulate divine power to her own political desires. Good contextual link. Caesar’s failure to achieve both reveals the importance of Machiavelli’s notions of religion. Hence, the differing contexts of Elizabethan England and Renaissance Italy both accentuate the need to apprehend divine power in political success. Some good contextual links here, but again just a bit more analysis and a shift away from retell would benefit you greatly.

Manipulation is an essential component of political leadership in maintaining power without human integrity. Machiavelli's anthropocentric humanist views considering humans as the central element of existence above God accentuates his immoral values in the importance of political manipulation. He upholds the scheming, venomous politician Cesare Borgia, revering his audacity to enforce brutality when necessary. How does he reveal this? Quote/technique? Borgia becomes a key ideal in the didactic aphorism “opponents with their cunning…achieved more than leaders who behaved honestly” to demonstrate the vitality of a manipulative nature. Only when moral values of orthodox Christian ideology are rejected does a leader become ultimately successful in manipulation to employ cruelty when necessary in order to maintain power. This feels like a new Thesis here, perhaps introduce this idea near the top and START with Shakespeare? Shakespeare exemplifies an ideal manipulative leader in Mark Antony in the anaphoric repetition of 'Brutus was an honourable man' spoken in sophisticated verse in order to sway public opinion to make his honour tokenistic. Following Machiavelli's aphorism, the cunningness of Antony outperforms Brutus's honest approach in leadership exemplifying the importance of manipulation and challenging Roman virtue. Relying a little much on a plot point there. Thus Shakespeare ambiguously parallels to Queen Elizabeth who was ruthless in persecuting Catholics utilising manipulation in order to maintain power as the virgin queen. Great. Therefore the necessity of manipulation is upheld in order to survive in turmoil political situations.

Through the context of turmoil political situations, the notions of honour and morality, the divine order and manipulation are explored in Machiavelli's 'The Prince' and Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. The zeitgeist of the composers highlights the universal nature of political leadership, disregarding the need for integrity despite the differing contexts that shape human values.

Solid stuff Jeff, I think you just need a few more quotes/techniques! Ideas are great and contextual links are spot on, just needs a tad more analysis to push it into that really high range