VCE Stuff > VCE Literature

Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.

<< < (15/19) > >>

Na__oia:
So for part A of the exam, I'm writing on Baron in the trees. This is the first perspectives essay I've written that wasn't the SAC and I'm wondering if someone can give me some tips to improve before the exam.
Thank you in advance :)

Discuss to what extent is the baron in the trees about corruption of class?

“Calvino is… using Cosimo as a device to develop and test the limits of a utopian argument” –Eugenio Bolongaro. Through his manipulation of women throughout the novel, Calvino punishes the actions of the aristocracy. Juxtaposing the elite against their poor simply due to inherited fame and status perpetuates an interpretation of Calvino’s work. Calvino states “[the baron in the trees] is born from the image, not from any thesis which I want to demonstrate” opening the novel to a post-structural interpretation, as an ‘image’ from different points of view elicits different motives for action from different people.

In defiance of her rape, Battista was crippled into isolation and objectified as a pseudo ‘nun’. This positioning displays the power of men within the ‘obrosian’ Aristocracy and introduces a position of which women sit in society. Women are forced into shadows and critiqued by men of power as ‘grotesque’ and with an ‘artillery’ nature displaying how there is a coherent fear of being overthrown. This fear derives from societies known secret of women reaching an equilibrium to men. This is not tolerated in an aristocratic livelihood and thus punishment is in order. The silencing of Battista after being ‘seduced’ by the ‘simpleton’ belonging to the ‘Della Mella’ family displays a societal embarrassment not of the concept of rape, but her ability to defend herself. This contrast between the embarrassment of the ‘inherited strength’ of Battista and sequentially the ‘punishment’ supports the dystopia in shadows. The feminist movement was not until the 19th century in the western world, which coincided with the publication of the baron in the trees. The treatment of females within the novel and the illustration of them to the audience are stated by Matt Keeley as “a. horrible, b. masculine, or, c. anonymous” This mood created by Keeley displays women as an illusion to be feared. This separation of women from men and as such their possibilities for success explores how the class of the Italian nobles is corrupted.

The sheer translation of ‘Ombrosa’ presents the ‘shadows’ which promotes the understanding of a shunned social grouping. The working class within the baron in the trees qualifies the motif of ‘duty’ to establish an elite grouping against a proletariat working class. This considers the prospects of Cosimo being ‘fascinated with human labour’, reiterates the perceptions of the selfish aristocracy. Cosimo himself has an underlying desire to see the labour of the working class unfold. Although he ‘contributes when he can’ there is a strong notion of entrapped classes. The ‘sluggard court of France’ enforces the notion to a reader of a historic-based distance between the French and the Italian states. This social distance is a view that supporting the binary opposites of class contrasting an in group and out group for hierarchical standards. This pragmatic action enforces the separation of class and pressures a realist interpretation for society and Calvino’s fiction ‘society in general’.

Albeit, Cosimo does represent an aged ‘rebellion’ which to some does not distance himself enough from the oppressive aristocracy. “women screaming as he moves past” This corruption is represented from a young age in the ‘tradition[al]’ rule of the aristocracy. ‘A fig for all your ancestor's father’ is not only alluding to an insult distancing himself from his father’s ‘cold’ love, but the sour flesh of a fig enveloped by a leathered exterior, a simple tree grown fig is a metaphor for a corrupted and selfish caste system. Cosimo’s propel away from the aristocracy at a time of political unrest draws notions as an archaic aristocracy being overthrown. The ‘book of complaints’ suggests a society which considers a society as a whole. This cosmopolitan stance usurps the reader to view Cosimo as a Ombrosian diplomat vying for the freedom of opinion. These opinions constructed in the ‘book of complaints’ as an effort for a ‘Mutual esteem’

The obvious separation of names inherited from the Aristocracy proudly announce their position in class. An upper-class construct is established through names such as “duke”, “Baron” “Abbe” “Cavalier” which illustrate upper-class elite stances. Names such as “Ursula” and “Gian” compare against the “old person name” “Cosimo. The preference to be called the diminutive ‘Mino’ continues to perpetuate to the reader that there is a loathing for the strict traditions of the aristocrat from an early age. The shattering of the “busts” on against “marble” contrast the concrete interpretations of Cosimo. “No father I am not coming down”. Where the object of down in this sentence alludes to tradition. This contrast of class signifies where corruption comes from. “Cosimo’s place, always seemed to me, to be with us” describes the dystopia which masquerades through a crumbling utopian ruling.

Cosimo’s defiance of ‘traditional dinner’ and overall disgust for ‘society in general’ exemplifies the corruption within the novel. It is possible to interpret the interest that Calvino seeks through publishing this novel is to advance the view that corruption is due to the contrast of class.

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Charlie Locke on November 07, 2017, 09:28:14 am ---Clarke54321, here is another CPA based on the 2017 VATE passages for A Doll's House- I'm also struggling a little with my conclusion, any advice would be greatly appreciated regarding a conclusion to a CPA!!

When Helmer declares 'you loved me as a wife should love her husband' it is apparent that Nora is and has been placed under both Helmer's strict and unrealisticI'd refrain from this type of conclusion so early. That's something I'd build towards as I tease out more close analysis. ideals, which are ultimately constructed by the broader Bourgeoisie society in which they reside. The emphasis of this declaration nothing wrong with this, but just clarifying that it was explicitly emphasised in the play itself (sorry I'm not doing this text for CPA, but studied it throughout the year- memory is starting to fail me  :))is on the 'should' as it illustrates the Nora's moral and emotional obligation to her family and the way in which she is expected to bind herself wholly to Helmer. Nora is expected to perform her 'duty' as 'a wife' and 'a mother' and this is accentuated by the Helmer's condescending and paternal instructions toward her. At the denouement of the play when Nora's secret is revealed Helmer informs Nora that he has 'forgiven [her] for everything'. This declaration reflects his patriarchal dominance in their symbiotic relationship as he declares it with pride and authority. Through the possessive pronoun- animalistic metaphor manifesto not seeing the link here Ibsen depicts a marital imbalance and furthermore reveals that both Helmer and Nora require each other in order to maintain the illusion to the external world. Helmer's often superficial tone more evidence necessary. The great thing about your CPA's is that you never fail to provide the "why" (V+V) element. However, it is crucial that you continually weave evidence (serving an analytical purpose) throughout the piece.constructs the façade that both he and Nora are living behind in order to maintain the perfect illusion which causes a paradoxical effect where both characters become conscious of their fragmented and fractured relationship. Ibsen characterises both Helmer and Nora in a manner that reflects the marital imbalance within their marriage and the duty forced upon Nora as she represents the inferior, '[helpless] individual in her marriage. Is this paragraph an integrated introduction? Fine if it is!

Nora's conversation with Mrs Linde regarding her own experiences functions on a superficial level as Nora can be seen 'jumping and clapping her hands' exclaiming 'it's wonderful to be alive'. Her highly energised movements and melodrama that are interwoven throughout her dialogue between herself and Mrs Linde illustrates the role of Nora within her private, social sphere This is a bit vague. What is this role? Nora's exclamations are almost sickly in nature. That is, her excessive praising of life works to unveil the paradoxical reality of pretence (and superficiality) that Nora is seemingly consumed by.  . Nora's melodrama proceeds her declaration that 'Torvald's never had a day's illness since. And the children are well and strong, and so am I'. This bold statement proves patronising and condescending as Nora lacks the ability to empathise with the plight that Mrs Linde has endured with the absence of a husband to shelter and protect her from life's hostilitythis is very picky, but could be deemed as subjective. Maybe add the apparent/seeming in front of it.. Nora appears overexcited and energised however this ultimately masks her inner angst and turmoil as she later '[takes] off the fancy dress' when experiencing her epiphanic realisation. The act of jumping up and down, followed by her '[sitting] on a footstool beside Kristina' nice. Can you add any further analysis to this to make it stronger?reflects Nora's patronising attitudes as she feels it necessary to physically lower herself in order to converse with Mrs Linde. Nora seems completely unaware of the emotional and physical turmoil that Mrs Linde has had to endure when she exclaims 'how relieved you must feel' in response to Mrs Linde's description of her formidable work ethic during the periods of sorrow and angst. Nora's superficial understanding and lack of compassion is reflected by Mrs Linde's sharp and blunt response Is it sharp/blunt or more wistful? Saddened? What does the ellipsis do here?'No... Just unspeakably empty- I've no one to live for anymore'. The pause in Mrs Linde's dialogue depicts her strong-willed nature as she attempts to educate Nora as she 'hasn't the experience' to comprehend Mrs Linde's situation. Nora's superficiality is ultimately exemplified through Ibsen's characterisation of her and it is through this that Ibsen himself attempts to portray the passive, unnatural duty that Nora is expected to meet punctually. Nora's obligations are forced upon her, whilst she remains a 'dove' who is conscious of her situation but who is not yet prepared to challengeAfter having just read the start of your next paragraph, it seems as though you are going to shed more light on this silent metamorphosis. I didn't get much of a feel for it in this paragraph. So instead of finishing this paragraph with a fully fleshed interpretation (the bold), I'd maybe hint. You could say that there are signs of Nora's transgressive desires. This would complement the next paragraph. the oppressing tyranny of both her society and her husband.

It is through the hostile confrontation with Krogstad that Nora begins to notice her role more clearly as an individual and not just as a wife or mother. It is when Krogstad attempts to frighten Nora with his angered and contemptuous remarks to Nora depicting his attempts of redemption that Nora adopts the necessary 'courage' to confront him need more evidence in these two sentences. How does Krogstad frighten Nora?. Krogstad's efforts to atone for his past crime reflects Nora's current situation of attempting to conceal the lies and deceit that gradually manifest themselves throughout the home and into the character's consciousness great V+V, but need more evidence to justify.. When Nora challenges Krogstad by declaring 'Yes, I have the courage now' he dismisses this instantaneously by replying ' You can't frighten me! A fine pampered lady like you.' It is this moment that Krogstad demonstrates the sexist ideals that categorise women as weak and vulnerable, incapable of experiencing any emotionhmm...not sure about this conclusion. as an individual and lacking the necessary capabilities to intellectualise their environment and situations. Krogstad's derogatory remarks subjugates Nora, once again to the oppressing ideals of the Bourgeoisie realm, where masculinity dictates to femininity. Nora is victimised by Krogstad and is ridiculed based on her gender. As Krogstad foreshadows Nora's suicide, he uses vivid, often chilling descriptions of her body 'under the ice', 'down into the cold water' and '[floating] to the top, ugly, hairless, unrecognisable'. With this description her crime becomes personified how? Tease out the symbolism. What is the suggestion here (floating to top ugly, hairless, unrecognisable)? This is a body devoid of any life- cannot be identified.and as Krogstad depicts her body to the top this emulates the nature of the secret she has kept hidden from Helmer, progressively surfacing ooh that is interesting. Well my previous interpretation regarding the body may no longer suffice. How do you interpret this? It may be worth mentioning.. His cruelty and disgust towards Nora at this moment initiates a fearless response to Krogstad, she rejects his attempt to frighten her, replying 'You can't frighten me' however this is abruptly met by Krogstad who depicts his true power over her stating boldly 'You forget that then your reputation would be in my hands'. Nora 'stands speechless' all verbal autonomy- interesting. Not just her body.which ultimately reflects her acknowledgement of Krogstad's power and his ability to reveal her secret and furthermore damage both her and Helmer's façade. Nora now realises  that her marital position has the potential to be compromised, the perfect illusion that she constructs can be torn away and damaged, revealing the truth of her and her marriage.

When Nora is in the process of 'taking off [her] fancy dress' her feminine duty is deconstructed and abandoned why? Indeed it is natural for a dress to symbolise femininity. But you have to lay it out for the examiner. They need help connecting the dots.. The action of bearing herself and forcing herself from the fancy dress signifies her evolution into a woman who attempts to obtain individual autonomy. Helmer declares that his 'great wings will protect [Nora]' however he is unaware that he no longer holds the dominant position over Nora. The possessive pronoun and animalistic metaphor manifesto reflects Nora's inferior role and vulnerability in her marriage, however as she stands 'in her everyday things' it becomes clear that she is seeking for a sense of individualism and profound change It seems there is a contradiction here. Does everyday=profound change? Needs some further clarification.. The change she is seeking challenges everything that her marriage represents and she is simultaneously constructing a path for other women to follow. Through her 'experience' not worth quotingNora is able to gradually become aware of her needs as an individual by figuratively are they figurative in the end?questioning the oppressing ideals of her contemporary society through her actions and decisions.


--- End quote ---

Good job, again  :) In regards to your conclusion concerns, I wouldn't worry too much! Personally, I don't feel the need to add a seperate conclusion to my CPA. Rather, I ensure that the last 3 or so sentences of my final BP are bold/defiant enough to make an impact. This also allows me to naturally entwine the 3 passages/poems, and then comment on them as a whole and what they're saying.

casssyy:
Any feeding on this would be awesome please!!

W.E.H Stanner’s The Dreaming and Other Essays frowns upon the lack of understanding European Australians have for the Aboriginal people. The following extracts: ‘Continuity and Change among the Aborigines’, ‘Aborigines and Australian Society’ and ‘Aboriginal Humour’ provide elements of different perspectives that allow majority of Europeans to misjudge the Aboriginal people. Stanner aims to portray Aboriginal people in a civil manner and demonstrate their human traits whilst discrediting European reputation.

Stanner condemns European lack of understanding and encourages them to dismantle their pride. Stanner reveals in ‘Continuity and Change among the Aboriginies’ that ‘we are concerned with our own reputation as much as, if not a little more than, the Aboriginies’ position’. Stanner aims to exploit the Australian government as self-absorbed rather than looking out for the safety and wellbeing of the Aboriginal people. Stanner further emphasises his disgust when stating that ‘it comforts us rather more than we have any reason to suppose it will comfort the Aborigines’. The Assimilation policy is antagonised as having provided zero benefits to the Aboriginal people as Stanner castigates the governments failed efforts. Likewise, in ‘Aborigines and Australian Society’, Stanner recalls the first-person account of experiencing European ignorance. Stanner explains that as he ‘was preparing for a lecture’ when someone asked him ‘why not tell us what makes it so hard to do anything for the Aborigines?’. Stanner rejects the unknowledgeable Europeans question as illiterate and uses it to introduce his argument. Stanner explores the misconception of Aboriginal people to encourage European’s to step back and comprehend their perspective.

Stanner advocates for a generous perception of Aboriginal people abnormalities. Stanner rejoices the differences between Aboriginal and European people and discusses their similarities. Stanner highlight that Aboriginal people aren’t a ‘main part of the trouble’ as they just perceive the world around them differently. Stanner explains that their ‘mentality’, ‘social habits and cultural oddities’ are conventional in Aboriginal society. The extract from ‘Aboriginies and Australian Society’ debunks their differences as possessing the issue with European and Aboriginal communication. Stanner supports the culture and aims to explain the differences as natural to Aboriginal life. On the other hand, Stanner depicts Aboriginal people as capable of interpreting and applying humour to mundane situations. Stanner explains that there is ‘no Aboriginal word for thank-you’ which may inflict concern into sceptical European’s. However, Stanner assures readers that such phrases would be ‘hardly appropriate’ in such a scenario. Furthermore, Stanner depicts his ‘Aboriginal companion’ as a criminal who ‘stole milk at every opportunity’. Stanner aims to portray his companion as able to comprehend his illegal activity whilst mocking the situation. The European understanding of crime is alternate to the Aboriginal perception. Stanner intends to expand European knowledge of diversity and promotes a harmonious society.

Stanner depicts Aboriginal people as capable of possessing human characteristics contrary to European belief. In ‘Aboriginal Humour’ Stanner’s companion can interpret his crime as entertaining and makes a ‘rust’ joke from the empty cans. Stanner includes this anecdote to reveal that Aboriginal people are efficient in humorous exchanges and share this quality with European’s. Likewise, in the second extract Stanner emphasises that Aboriginal people are ‘in every essential human respect, much of a muchness with us’. Stanner aims to reveal the human traits embodied in Aboriginal people and allow Europeans an understanding of Aboriginal culture and society. Stanner ‘invite(s)’ his readers to figure out the comparison between races in an attempt to diminish racial prejudice. Stanners purpose in constructing his essays is to explore Aboriginal people and portray them in a positive light and explain their human qualities.

Stanner’s investigative anthropologist instincts aim to discredit the Australian governments failed attempts in assisting the Aboriginal people. The first passage begins with a bold statement exclaiming that ‘There is no reason to believe that many Aboriginies want the kind of future which is predetermined by assimilation.’ Stanner reveals the harsh reality of assimilation policies and how it has negative consequences on Aboriginal mentality. Moreover, Stanner states that the ‘policy does not envisage the Aboriginies as having any right of option’. Stanner believes the concept and application of assimilation provided no benefits to Aboriginal people but rather dehumanised them. The Aboriginal people were denied choices and rights due to European racism. Similarly, in ‘Aboriginies and Australian Society’ Stanner reiterates that ‘our measures and methods should work’ however they did not. The European understanding of racial difference applied incorrect and unfair treatment to affected individuals. Stanner heavily believes that the segregation of races is a ‘comparative failure’ in every aspect. Stanner aims to enlighten European misconception and alert the Australian government of their wrongdoing.
The provided passages focus on a particular aspect in Aboriginal society, whist integrating the human characteristics embedded in Aboriginal people. Stanner reveals European and government official ignorance poses catastrophic consequences on Aboriginal livelihood. Ultimately, Stanner celebrates the racial difference between European and Aboriginal people and leans for a brighter future in Australian society.

EdgyPotato:
If possible, feedback for this piece would be appreciated. This was done in response to some self-chosen Heart Of Darkness passages

It is revealed by Conrad that European colonisation is a greedy, corrupting practice, founded on false justifications. Conrad subsequently heavily condemns the practice of colonialism on these grounds, suggesting that the “emissaries of light” these colonisers act as are instead bringers of brutality and are corrupted by their own greed.

Conrad exposes that colonialism exists largely to satiate the greed of colonisers, and condemns it as such. This is made explicit through those throughout the stations within in Africa. Here, in hopes to earn percentages for themselves, the men fixate on Ivory. Ivory is assigned such significance the word would “seem to ring in the air”, revealing how much it is valued by those within blah. This fixation on Ivory collection for personal gain is further emphasized by Kurtz, who has achieved notoriety for his “stacks” of Ivory. In the third passage, Marlow, meeting Kurtz, is confronted with the deep obsession Kurtz has built in regards to the collection of ivory. Kurtz, despite his illness, insists that the group that has come to save him is “interrupting [his] plans” and that he is “not so sick as you would like to believe.” Later, the extent to which Kurtz’s obsession has drawn into “a spell” is revealed as, in his sickened state, Kurtz still crawls towards a local tribe. The significance of this being that, as Kurtz is revered by the natives, and that Kurtz is attempting to regain the accumulated power and status he has acquired. In this way, it is revealed that Kurtz, through his accumulation of Ivory and worship by the natives, has come to be possessed with a desire to obtain power and status. Furthermore, Marlow’s comment in the first passage that “the company was run for profit” emphasizes that colonial practices are undertaken only for personal gain. In this way, the suggestion that European colonisation exists as a force to spread “the germs of empire”, and thus, civilisation is undermined. Conrad instead condemns that imperialism is undertaken purely for the greed of those colonisers.

Conrad further decries colonialism by undermining the notion that European colonisation is for the good of the African natives. This is achieved by Conrad through the suggestion that the idea of civilising the “savage” natives is ultimately a hollow one. In the second passage, Conrad creates imagery of a large, looming forest. The “empty reaches”, “still bends”, “high walls” and “millions of trees” crafting the landscape through which Marlow travels. This depicts Marlow travelling through the thick, imposing jungle as if he was akin to the natives, cut off from the artificial environment of his own society. Furthermore, the Furthermore, Marlow’s imagery of the steamboat he travels in as a “grimy beetle” heightens his return to a natural landscape. The significance of this is made clear when Marlow shortly comments that the boat, for him, seemed to travel “towards Kurtz - exclusively”. This suggests that, much like the natives, Marlow has become enamoured with Kurtz, and deeply wishes to meet him. In this way, Conrad suggests that, away from the trappings of his own European society, Marlow becomes like the natives in Africa. This is further reinforced when Marlow throws his shoes overboard after his helmsman dies, revealing superstitions like those held by the natives. Conrad therefore criticizes the notion that European colonisation exists to spread civilisation, by suggesting both the colonisers and those they colonise are just as savage.

It is revealed and decried by Conrad that European colonisation, being a brutal practice, is maintained through deception. This is made most apparent in the first passage, when Marlow discusses his expedition with his Aunt. Being described as a “lower sort of apostle” in his journey, which causes Marlow to comment that “such rot” was likely feed to his aunt from newspapers. In this way, Conrad suggests that the notions of spreading truth and god to the dark African continent are lies told to placate the public. This is furthered when Marlow hints to his aunt that “the Company was run for profit”, revealing the true motive behind European colonisation. In the deflection of this claim, Marlow’s aunt is used by Conrad to represent a deluded public. This is emphasized through the statement that women are “out of touch with the truth”. This statement is used by Conrad to suggest that women, largely being absent from colonial proceedings, are protected from the reality of it. This is furthered by Marlow’s changing attitude towards Kurtz, who represents the worst of colonisation, develops as he travels deeper into the jungle. Initially, Marlow comes to revere Kurtz, much like the natives. However, after being confronted with Kurtz’s “raiding the land” and gruesome keeping of heads on pikes, comes to wish to be rid of the memory of Kurtz, and to reject the notion of his greatness. This indicates that the public, such as Marlow’s aunt, who support European colonisation would come to dislike it following direct exposure. Conrad therefore reveals that the brutality of colonisation, which would otherwise cause outcry against it, is excused through deception. In this way Conrad exposes that these colonial practices are so brutal they must be maintained through deceit, and as such, condemns them.

Conrad also reveals that colonisation is a corrupting force, that can undermine even the best of Europe. In the first passage, Marlow discovers that he was presented as an “exceptional and gifted creature” by his aunt. Furthermore, this is built upon by the statement that Marlow will be “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways’. All suggesting Marlow to be a great figure who will act in the best interests of Africa. Marlow’s presentation as being gifted is much like that of Kurtz, who is known for being a great musician, artist and writer. Much like Marlow too, Kurtz was expected to act to civilise the African natives. This is revealed through Kurtz’s being tasked with writing a report for the a group dealing with the “suppression of savage customs”. As such, Kurtz’s own downfall is presented as an ominous of what could become of other Europeans, such as Marlow. The development of Kurtz’s own madness, leading him to append his report on how to civilise the African natives with the phrase “exterminate all the brutes”, is suggested to be something that other colonists are susceptible of falling prey to and oh god sentence. Marlow’s own journey into the “heart of darkness” therefore becomes one in which he confronts Kurtz, who represents what he could very well become. This notion that Marlow could become like Kurtz is furthered by the other men Marlow meets throughout the stations he passes. These men, in order to obtain percentages, have developed an obsession with Ivory, such that the mere word “would seem to ring in the air”. In this way Conrad suggests that even those presented as the best of Europe, such as Kurtz and Marlow, are susceptible to becoming enamoured with their own greed. Therefore, Conrad reveals that European colonisation is a practice which reflects a darkness within the whole of European society. Conrad therefore exposes that European colonisation, being a savage and brutal practice, serves to undermine the notion of European superiority over the natives. As such, Conrad condemns colonisation, by suggesting the colonisers are no better than those they oppress, and are easily corrupted by their own greed.

In conclusion, Conrad undermines justifications used for European imperialism, and reveals it to be a selfish, corrupting practice.

Hala119:

--- Quote from: charmanderp on November 12, 2012, 08:38:56 pm ---If you want feedback on an essay, post it here! The compilation thread is for 'model' essays'.

--- End quote ---

Hey, this is just a paragraph excerpt from my Literature essay on Little Miss Sunshine. Any feedback would be appreciated :)

Contention: Little Miss Sunshine explores the distinctions between upper and lower class in relation to the role of wealth and status in American society by exposing opportunities, possessions and events, or lack thereof.

Paragraph:
In Little Miss Sunshine, directors Dayton and Faris portray the lack of opportunities the Hoover family has as a result of their low social status when compared to the upper classes. Throughout the film, the directors draw attention to the characters of Richard and Frank as well as their close relations with upper class men. Richard’s character is portrayed as a man adamant on signing a book deal that discusses nine steps that distinguish winners and losers. Because Richard is part of the commercial middle class, he believes that in order to ‘win’ at life, he needs to work hard to make his name heard. However, when we see that Richard is at the mercy of upper class members who usually prefer to buy products that originate from well-established people, the idea that because Richard is not popular or wealthy, he is not heard, is emphasised. The directors highlight upper class members such as Stan, Richard’s ex-agent, who explains to him that the only reason the business failed is because ‘nobody’s heard of [Richard]. Nobody cares.” (Stan) The readers are therefore able to interpret that lost opportunities usually follow lower class members who are not of high status in American society. Furthermore, Frank is also part of the middle class, which therefore limits his opportunities. The directors highlight the distinction between Frank and his rival, another Proust professor, Larry Sugarman: While Frank pines after the man he loves, his rival is able to receive the affection and love Frank desperately hopes for. From a Marxist perspective, the readers can draw the conclusion that the reason this has happened to Frank is a result of his social status. The directors draw attention to the different luxuries both scholars have, namely the instance where while Frank purchases porn and a cold drink after exiting his beat-up, barely operating bus, Frank’s unattainable lover greets him while directing Frank’s attention toward Sugarman’s expensive car. Thus readers can assume that Frank’s lost chance relates to the lack of luxuries that he could provide. Ultimately, through characters such as Richard and Frank, who are of low social class, the directors are able to emphasise the link between limited possessions and lost opportunities.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page