VCE Stuff > VCE Literature

Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.

<< < (16/19) > >>

kadesal:
is this thread active anymore??? one way to find out
(this is the script for my oral SAC, its meant to be under 5 minutes  :'()
INTRODUCTION:
In Gwen Harwood’s poems, ‘Prize Giving’ and ‘In the Park’, a feminist lens highlights the varying degree to which women can convey power through their respective roles, a school-girl ironically – appears to be much more emotionally empowered than the mother of the latter poem.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1:
[In Prize-Giving] Harwood’s focus on the male intellectual is utilized to explore the spectrum of intelligence in a matriarchal setting. On account of Harwood’s upbringing by several dominant female figures in her life - her mother being an active feminist in the community whilst her grandmother earned her own living until she reached eighty – has shaped her writing to be an exploration of the influence of female figures in society. In terms of structure, the ABCBCA rhyme scheme allows every line to work in synergy with one another to produce a perfect rhyme. Harwood refuses to stray from this systematic form to emulate Eisenbart’s projected image of composed immaculacy. In addition, Eisenbart is strictly referred to with the honorific ‘Professor’ and the omission of his first name, typically reserved for official addresses – establishes his demand for respect. In addition, the dactylic meter which is occasionally disrupted is indicative of the focalised perspective of Eisenbart’s social image teetering on the edge of dismantlement, which is disguised by the seemingly-perfect rhyme. The introduction of a second person disrupts the dactylic meter, in which the whole line, ‘one girl sat grinning at him, her hand bent’ is narrated in iambic pentameter. Though it immediately resumes its dactylic form, it is still subject to fluctuations. The significance of the schoolgirl’s mockery of his Rodin’s Thinker-like pose demonstrates her awareness of Eisenbart’s attempt to pose as an intellectual. Her confidence in mocking the figure of intended respect is further established not only by these disruptions – but by the visual imagery Harwood employs to instil the divergence of the female persona in the audience. Unlike the student body which is generalised as a 'mosaic of... blonde, black, mouse-brown [heads]', their appearance described as a collective with the use of alliteration of the 'b' sound, the 'titian-haired' persona does not fit within these constraints ; delineating her individuality. Overall, Harwood attempts to convey the fragility of the male ego through Eisenbart's persona, in which he begins to see himself as an oxymoronic 'sage fool' in his reflection upon witnessing the similarly ironic schoolgirl's 'master's air'. Both Eisenbart and the schoolgirl are therefore relegated to oxymorons themselves – in which their appearance is not at all reflective of their intelligence.

BODY PARAGRAPH 2:
In ‘In the Park’, she similarly utilizes the focus on an individual to contradict the societal expectation of the maternal role. Motherhood in this context, as opposed to artistic depictions of it throughout history, namely Madonna and Child, is instead portrayed in a negative light by the persona being consumed by it. In terms of structure, a sonnet typically carries connotations of the romantic and sublime - which is starkly contrasted against the tedium of the mother’s life, as well as with the varying anapaestic meter, which when narrated is monotonous, devoid of any melody – whilst retaining a more fluid and casual tone through the variation. In the first quatrain, this is interrupted by a caesura (-) succeeded by the spondaic enjambed line ‘too late’ to emulate the halting thought process of the mother. The sudden interruption could be interpreted as a moment of regret, followed by a solemn lament for the potential future with this past object of love. Alternatively, the focalisation of a third person perspective represents a god’s eye to accurately and objectively describe the mother’s menial life, whilst being able to include phrases that otherwise would not have been incorporated into the poem by a first or second person perspective without bias. For example, the line,  ‘to the wind she says, ‘They have eaten me alive’’, would not have been heard by any other party. Here, the auditory image of her speaking into the wind implies a sense of regret for what she’s said, willing its meaning to be carried into the wind and to ultimately disappear. Her infinitesimal existence is once again re-iterated as her words are evanescent; immediately disappearing – conveyed to no-one except for an inanimate entity. In essence, the idea Harwood attempts to convey through this poem can be condensed easily into the separated rhyming couplet, the first line ending with ‘watch them thrive’, the latter ending with ‘they have eaten me alive’. The oxymoron between the concepts of a healthy child developing in contrast to the mother being eaten alive psychologically highlights the parasitic relationship between a mother and child. The audience is able to understand through the use of an oxymoron specifically; that there is a duality to motherhood, a conflict between living for oneself and for one’s children.
CONCLUSION:
With the opposing personas presented in the poems, Harwood attempts to reinforce the imperative role of women in contemporary society whilst simultaneously condemning those viewing motherhood as an impediment to their individuality.

hums_student:
Someone please tell me everything that's wrong with my essay. Feel free to be as mean and critical and harsh as you like!  ;D I won't hate you

This is a practice prompt on CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF my adaptations and transformations SAC happening first week back in term 2!

Richard Brooks’s film adaptation of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof renders Big Daddy the focus of not merely the second act but rather of the entire text. Discuss with reference to both the play and the film.

Between the construction of Tennessee Williams’s play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and its transformation into the 1958 film, it is evident that meaning has been altered due to the time period and the audience’s views and values at the time as well as the different methods of presenting the text in the form of a play script and as a film.

In the script Big Daddy makes no appearance in act one with the exception of being mentioned by others, hence ensuring that the audience’s focus does not stray away from Brick’s relationship with other characters such as Maggie and Skipper. By contrast, in Richard Brooks’s film adaptation Big Daddy is introduced much earlier. Without the restrictions of the stage, the film is able to show Big Daddy’s arrival in his private plane and Maggie taking him back to his plantation. Unlike the original play, where Big Daddy is first seen at the beginning of act two, the film gives the audience a much earlier introduction of Big Daddy in order to focus on his character much more often throughout the text. The film particularly brings forward a different portrayal of Big Daddy’s character as loving and understanding through the shot of him willingly going over to Maggie to give her a hug. By asking Maggie ‘Does [Brick] love you?’ Brooks paints a more human and empathetic nature of Big Daddy who can somewhat understand the feelings of others, as opposed to the vulgar, tactless and self-centred character depicted by Williams.

Brick’s relationship with Big Daddy and the representation of Big Daddy himself changes drastically with the adaptation of the script into a film. Brick and Big Daddy’s complex and troubled relationship is conveyed within the play mainly through the use of dialogue, and while there are some instances of stage direction implying physical interactions between Brick and Big Daddy, such as when he ‘clasps his son’s two shoulders’ in act two after realising Brick was an alcoholic, all actions are dependent on dialogue. On the other hand, physical interactions between Brick and Big Daddy are much more easily demonstrated in the film due to a lack of restrictions posed by a play script. Scenes of Brick and Big Daddy’s interactions outside in the rain and later in the basement easily shifts Big Daddy into the limelight. The ability to create a visualisation of Brick and Big Daddy’s father-son relationship is largely advantageous for a film audience as they are able to see it in action instead of purely attempting to visualise it through the script.

One of the more notable scenes of the film is the scene shot in the Pollitt family basement featuring only Brick and Big Daddy. In this scene the audience witnesses a heartfelt and sincere conversation between the father and son, which establishes Big Daddy’s character as not merely a brash plantation owner but also deep down a humble and caring father. This is further emphasised through Brooks’s neglect to use the repeated phrase of ‘Wouldn’t it be funny if that was true’ for both Brick and Big Daddy. In the play this is used to highlight both men’s rejection of their spouse’s declaration of love for them, yet by neglecting this line for the film this proposes the idea that the men may not be as quick to reject their wives as they were depicted in the play. Big Daddy’s appearances throughout the later half of the film also differs greatly from the original play, where Big Daddy makes no appearance in act three, and any reconciliation between Brick and Big Daddy is completely absent. By adding this scene Richard Brooks is able to add more depth to Big Daddy’s character by implying that the audience was only introduced to a shallow portrayal of Big Daddy in the play and that there is much more to his personality.

Therefore, it can be seen that the changes made through the transformation of the play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and its 1958 film adaption significantly alter the role of Big Daddy within the narrative by rendering him the focus of the entire text.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

It's probably a bit short (just under 700 words). Anyway please tell me where I need to improve on!

Primenumber32:
Hi, this is an article analysis and I would greatly appreciate some feedback on how to improve and what to keep doing.

This is the link to the article, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sadly-us-will-not-learn-from-latest-carnage-20171003-gytirg.html

This is my analysis:

Analysis: Sadly, the US will not learn from latest carnage.
The October Las Vegas shooting again reignited prolific Australian media coverage regarding the issue of gun control in America. Unlike the USA, with its vastly opposing views, Australian media has universally condemned America for not taking significant action against gun violence, with many lamenting the fact that such massacres will continue. “The Age”, in its editorial ‘Sadly, US will not learn from latest carnage’ (4/10/17), asserts that more guns will not make America safer. Using an exasperated tone, the editor echoes most of the readers acceptance that America needs to implement tougher gun laws for the safety of its citizens. More significantly, the editor’s concern is that America will not change its law; mirroring the belief of most Australian readers. 
From the outset, through the headline, the editor makes his contention clear, not only showing the newspapers’ conviction, but also allowing himself to align with his readers’ frustration at America’s inability to enforce more stringent gun laws. To elicit feelings of anger, the headline begins with the despairing word “sadly” and ends with the highly charged word “carnage” which connotes savageness. Following traditional editorial style, the editor presents a reasoned discussion that increases in assertiveness, in this case moving from the horror of the shootings, to Australia’s solution which is also used to rebut the belief that evil “cannot” be “regulate[d]”. Accordingly, the editor aims to create an impression that he has carefully considered the arguments for and against tougher gun laws, thus leading his readers to accept his view as balanced and thoughtful: that America should change its gun laws but it “will not”. Moreover, the editorial ends with a clear contention presented in short sentences to convey assertiveness. 
The editor’s opening paragraph highlights the difference between America and Australia to advocate that guns are the issue. The repetition of the phrase “once again” is designed to mirror the readers’ frustration that unlike Australia, America has not learnt from their previous mass shootings. To support such a position, the editor Initially coerces readers to see a strong and respectful connection between Australia, and America by inclusively asserting that “we” are “bound” by ties of culture, history, language, family, friendship”, however, he then quickly counters this with a dichotomy with respect to America’s “utterly alien” “love affair” with guns, thus, aiming to convince the audience to align not only the writer but their country- Australia’s stance on the importance of establishing safer gun regulations. 
Within the pieces body, the editor systematically explores the horror of the shootings and correlates it to lack of stringent gun laws. Using the power of three, he positions readers to view an absurd legal situation where one can attain “high powered” weapons “without raising the slightest alarm” and further, bring the weapons into a hotel “unremarked”. Furthermore, the editor depicts the horrific destruction that guns can cause by incorporating the relatable experience of the “time” to make tea which is designed to shock Australian readers and thus provoke them to believe that tougher gun laws may have prevented the mass shooting. Moreover, the incorporation of the word “maim” which connotes actions of mutilation and deformity along with the word “slaughter” which is related to the killing of animals is intended to compel the visualisation of the horrors that current gun laws allow. This is reinforced with the statistics that since the “Sandy hook Elementary school killing” there has been “more than 1500” similar acts, convincing readers to see his arguments as being supported by facts, thus framing his editorial as being indisputable.  Overall, the author aims to give readers better perspective of the horrors that guns are inflicting to emphasise the importance of changing gun laws.
Another approach by the editor is to show that there are possible solutions to the gun problem, but America is not listening. By declaring that Australia has not experienced a “mass shooting” since implementing tougher gun laws, the editor intends to encourage readers to see a clear cause and effect relationship; less guns leads to less gun violence.  His assertation (contrary to common American belief) that Australia has “not brought security at the price of liberty” implies that the concept of freedom is subjective and shows that, unlike Americans, who believe a gun to be a “precious…symbol of freedom”; Australian’s view “lives” as being “precious” and free to live without being “casually ended by lone madmen”. Highlighting that Americans must look beyond a flawed “ideology” and instead use “evidence” to ground their perspective and consequently conclude that currently guns are but a “cancer on their society”.
After providing a rebuttal to the argument, that to take guns away is take away one’s freedom- the editor ends his piece by presenting two other rebuttals, again- to demonstrate the fallibility of points that support the push for more guns.  By contending that “if every concert goer” of the Las Vegas shooting had been armed it “would not have saved them” and emphasising this with the use of a standalone quote, the editor aims to appeal to readers logic and thus convince them that arming concert goers would have made no difference as the man was “32 floors above”. Next, with a mocking tone, the editor uses the governor, Matt Bevin’s tweet that “you can’t regulate evil” against him, implying that such stance has not worked before in America and thus should not continue to be used as an argument. Instead Suggesting that if these acts are truly “random” and “unpreventable” then the most one can do is “disarm this evil” and ironically regulate it.   

jayreichelt:
Hi everyone! This is my passage analysis on Cut, Words and Arrival of the Bee Box by Sylvia Plath. I would really appreciate some feedback on it in...

Passage Analysis: Arrival of the Bee Box, Cut, Words
Use two or more of the set poems as the basis for a discussion of the poetry of Sylvia Plath
Sylvia Plath utilises her poems as a catalyst for examination of power. This authority, and influence exists in many forms in Plath’s life, from internal conflict to marital matters.

The first hint of power and conflict is introduced via “Cut”. The use of opposing forces, such as “pilgrims” and “Indians” or “Babushka” and “Redcoats”, depicts the wound as a war between two sides similar to a marital dispute. These characterisations allude to the concept of rivalry and power as they are so drastically different in description and meaning, they naturally exist as opposition. It is thought that Plath is inundated with feelings and loss of power during this time due to her divorce with Ted Hughes.

The allusion to Plath’s divorce can be discovered throughout “Cut” when observing the language, detail and tone closely. There appears to be no discomfort in the injury, she depicts the scene almost as jolly and elegant with her use of “plush” and “thrill”, this gives the cut a sense of homeliness as one would find within a marriage (even when a battle is present). Plath’s use of an “onion” when describing the circumstances alludes to the idea of homeliness and family life in many aspects. It could hint at the role of women during the 1950s; cooking and cleaning, that Plath had to fill.

In the 1950s, society dictated how an individual should behaviour and interact with those around them. The words and pressures surrounding Plath held an unexplainable authority and power over her. If she did not give in to her role as a wife and woman in society, the consequences would be dire. These themes are channelled through Plath’s work, particularly in “Words” as she discusses the power that insults, ideas and opinions can have one’s life. This is evident as she uses metaphors, such as “horse”, “axes”, and “wood rings”, to stand in place of insults and the soul, and emphasise the power of such concepts. The “axes” are the initial impact and how it is over in moments, whereas the “horses” depict the ongoing jurisdiction of words even after the moment has passed. The “wood rings” can be interpreted as the layers of the soul and how axes can destroy and alter the layers of wood built over time. In this poem, it feels as though power has been forever lost from the character and taken by the inflictor.

 “Words” also approaches the idea that power can be taken away permanently. It is addressed toward the ending of the poem as she “encounters” the “dry and riderless” words on the “road”.  The imagery suggests that power does not need a face to be powerful. This concept is enforced by the use of repetition, for instance “echoes! Echoes”.

However, “Arrival of the Bee Box” has a different perspective and tone surrounding sovereignty and power. The modality of the character changes over the course of the poem, in the beginning low modality is expressed as they are unsure of what action to take and how to handle the situation as seen in phrases such as “how can I let them out?”. When the poem progresses and the modality increases, Plath expresses comfortability with the Bee Box. This conveys that the character is empowered and accepting of authority, they are not afraid of managing. This could be reflective of the recovery process of mental illness or inner thoughts, the bees, and her mind would be represented as the physical box. The character begins to understand and embrace the bees. This is representative of embracing trauma, inner thoughts, and the empower one may feel from doing so.

The theme of power is unmistakeable throughout all of Plath’s poems regardless of the matter at hand. From marital issues to internal conflict, the power and empowerment is always present in the foreground or background. For this, Sylvia Plath is a passionate, blunt, compelling writer clearly ahead of her time.

DUK0002:
Masculinity is defined by how much power a man could wield, but this concept heavily relies on how society may view that individual. In the hegemonic masculine world of 1835 Russia which highly stigmatised competiveness and assertiveness, ambition and higher rank became synonymous to masculinity. In his short story, The Nose, Gogol portrays masculinity through the use of literary techniques such as the use of verbs and adverbs to describe his characters whereas Alexeieff and Parker’s ‘Le Nez’, manipulates camera techniques, sounds and lighting in their adaptation of the same story.
 
Gogol’s main protagonist’s main objectives in life are to climb the table of ranks and marry well, but in order for Kovalyov to rise in power, he first builds himself a public identity which makes it seem like he has more power than he actually does. He arbitrarily attaches the title ‘major’ to his name which literally means important or significant because it projects a more masculine impression than simply referring to himself using the more modest title ‘collegiate assessor’. ‘Major’ carries the connotation of the physical prowess of a military man, which not only fits the masculine archetype of a ‘warrior’ but also relate to the fact that in 1835 Russia when the people of civil rank could attain the same status as the navy, the armed services still took precedence, meaning ‘major’ has a higher prestige.
 
Gogol uses women as a symbol system to represent ‘Kovalyov’s’ masculinity because women can be a basis of masculinity. Prior to the loss of his nose, ‘Kovalyov had no problem approaching ‘women’ or ‘pretty girls’ and telling them ‘secret instructions’ and when his nose returned, Kovalyov made a point to ‘ostentatiously stuff both nostrils’ with snuff whilst chatting with Mrs Podtochin and her daughter. Gogol uses the adverb ‘ostentatiously’ which suggest that Kovalyov was trying to impress them with his nose in a pretentious display only to reject the females. Being able to reject them means that he still has a wide variety of choice, he is still desired by women of higher rank and to be masculine is to be attractive or desired by women, and not just any women but good-looking, high-profiled women such as ‘Mrs Podtochin’s ‘daughter. However, when he lost his nose, he ‘jumpt’ away from the slim girl at the Cathedral as if he had been ‘burnt’. Here the readers could infer that Gogol is suggesting that the nose is a phallic symbol. The loss of Kovalyov’s nose could be seen as a metaphor for a castration, which could be ruinous for Kovalyov because without his nose, he could no longer desired by the opposite gender, he is reduced to a lower class and the image he has embellished with his ‘major’ title is eradicated.
 
Whilst Gogol uses adverbs to illustrate the power that women have on determining Kovalyov’s masculinity, Alexeieff and Parker’s adaptation uses lighting and movement to convey the same concept. This scene where Kovalyov and a woman are on a rocking boat has relatively low-key lighting and the woman is the only figure in the frame which has an all-white tone causing her to become the centre of attention.The shadow ratio increases with each rock of the boat, causing each frame to become darker and darker which insinuates the passing of time. The only person which sways up and down is Kovalyov, whereas the woman does not move at all. This could elucidate the impression that Alexeieff and Parker are suggesting that women may have an effect in the destabilisation of Kovalyov’s position in society.
 
 
In addition to the movement of the boat, Alexeieff and Parker also uses some camera movement and set manipulation to further allude to Kovalyov’s destabilisation through the loss of his nose through the scene after the rocking boat. The animation dollies in to a close up of Kovalyov face to accentuate Kovalyov’s realisation of his missing nose. He unconsciously clutches it as the walls of his apartment opens up and pans to reveal a street full of women gawking, showing that the first thing that Kovalyov thought of when he found out he lost his nose was the women. To be desired by women is to be considered by society to be masculine, so this worry shows the power that the women’s validation has in affecting Kovalyov’s pride, and therefore society’s perception of his masculinity.
 
If Kovalyov were desired by women, other men would then envy Kovalyov, perpetuating the competiveness of masculinity. Gogol presents Kovalyov’s personified nose as being a ‘state councillor’, four ranks above Kovalyov. Even in an absurd scenario, where he witnesses his own nose having human characteristics such as a ‘face’ and ‘expression’, feelings of inferiority and jealousy still manage to creep into Kovalyov's mind. As aforementioned, the nose could be a phallic symbol, and in this sense, Gogol may be suggesting that in a hyper masculine world, the ‘nose’ is valued so much that it is given a higher rank in society. Kovalyov loss of his own nose is emasculating to the point that he cannot even display the usual masculine traits of assertiveness as he didn’t know how to ‘go about’ approaching it.  Moreover, when he did find his nose, Gogol uses the adverb ‘superciliously’ to describe how Kovalyov treated lower ranking soldiers as this specific adverb connotes that Kovalyov thinks he’s superior to others Kovalyov literally turns his nose up at them to display dominance, emphasising that the soldiers have noses which were ‘no bigger than a waistcoat button. The italics of the word ‘waistcoat’ highlights its connotations of being small and as mentioned before, smaller means less masculine.
 
 
This idea of other men looking down at Kovalyov when he has lost his nose is also explored by Alexeieff and Parker through non-diegetic Korean and Vietnamese music to substitute for the narration of Gogol’s ‘The Nose’. The improvisatory nature of the music usually has a slow tempo with long uneven phases but after Kovalyov has confronted his nose at the Cathedral and it promptly left, the tempo quickened and builds to a crescendo which can seem aggressive. The Noseless Kovalyov desperately tries to reach for other men at the Cathedral but the man he approaches disappears and other men quickly filled the space he vacated, coupled with the the dissonant harmonies of the soundscape, this action seems accusatory.  These men are seen with a full shot and placed closer to the audience whilst Kovalyov is only presented with a long shot. This type of character positioning subtly coveys to the audience that the figures which are bigger, the men with protruding noses, have more power, whereas Kovalyov lacked this power. This scene seems to suggest to the audience that when his nose left, Kovalyov no longer belonged in on the same level as these men who have longer noses.
 
 
Gogol portrayed masculinity through the use of narrative devices such as gender specific words and adverbs to directly represent masculinity for his readers whereas Alexeieff and Parker’s representation of masculinity was more deeply coated. Only through the subtle changes in the soundscape, lighting and camera movement can the concept of masculinity in the gender polarised society of Kovalyov’s world, be noticed by the audience.
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page