Hi Atarnotes English moderators,
Could one of you please take some time when you are free to criticise and mark my language analysis?
Cheers Rory.
Start:
The decline in attendances at a particular Melbourne theatre company has led to the publication of a report which illustrates our society’s diminishing interest in this form of art. In his responding opinion piece entitled “The Greatest Tragedy of All” (4/06/12) published in a Melbourne quarterly art journal, current theatre critic, Giles Whittaker, opines that in order to preserve the theatre, producers must compose exciting shows which strike a balance between classical and modern exhibitions; whilst film producers must strive not to make a mockery of this precious art form in their adaptations. By permeating a heart-felt yet passive tone throughout his piece, Whittaker seeks to convince his audience, consisting of this journal’s readership and more broadly, theatre and film producers as well as younger generations, to galvanise a push for more productions which are popular among modern audiences, thus preserving this ancient art form.
Progressing from the clever word play of “tragedy” in the title to express the agony of losing tragedian theatre, Whittaker opens his article by arguing that theatre is an intrinsic component of the human species. Relying on the worldwide acclaim and highly regarded mastery of poet and play wright, Oscar Wilde, he quotes that “…the theatre [is] the greatest of all art forms…” to emphasise the extent of what we are losing. To intensify the audience’s dismay at the thought of the theatre dying, he elucidates that the loss of theatre will result in reduced socialisation because through the medium of theatre “a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be…human...”. In order to reduce the validity of the comments of “some” that “there is no harm in letting theatre die naturally”, Whittaker uses the juxtaposition of “harm” and “die” to stress that since the loss of theatre can be referred to with words which convey suffering and pain, it is in fact lamentable and a grave concern that we are allowing our richest form of art to slowly become extinct. Furthermore, the ominous and distressing connotations of the verb “die” are designed to elicit an emotional response in the audience to at once comprehend the gravity of contributing to this art form’s expiration. Hence, he seeks to instil commitment within his audience to revive the theatre from its current deterioration. Extending this argument, Whittaker proceeds to claim that the theatre is the root of our culture. Thus, he implies that without this art form, our “civilised culture” may not continue to prosper, but instead degenerate. The use of the verb “stem” paints an image of the theatre as a shoot which supports a complex and beautiful flower that being our refined culture. Moreover, the reference to times of rich cultural and social progression from the era of “Sophocles and Euripides” to “Marlow and Shakespeare” is aimed at strengthening the notion that there is an intrinsic relationship between the production of plays and our success as a society. Here, Whittaker seeks to imbue despair within older sectors of his audience as he implies that without theatre, future generations will not live under the same set of sophisticated social mores.
Extending the parameters of discussion, Whittaker segues into his subsequent argument that although film is more popular than theatre, the two visual forms of art can “coexist”. Adopting a more emotional tenor signalled by the haughty description of “film [being] deeply entrenched in our history and culture”, Whittaker initially seeks to invalidate the claims of dissenters. Whilst he acknowledges that “theatre is considered “elitist””, he quickly proceeds to recall an anecdote that his “English teacher mother…” took him to Hamlet at the age of “eleven years old”. Hence, he stresses that the theatre is a place where people of all social classes can gather to be “deeply moved”, thus extending his assenting audience. Furthermore, via the reference to his young age at which his interest in the theatre began, describing this interest with the word “passion” he aims to inject hope into his audience through its connotations of ardour and enthusiasm; history has shown that children can have an interest in theatre despite current norms of a “…distinct disinterest of the younger generation in the dramatic arts.” Before condemning the film industry as “cross[ing]…boundaries” which likens film to an invading malevolent force aiming to ravage theatre, Whittaker seeks to maintain favour within cinephiles by ardently declaring that he “doesn’t hate film” nor “plays being turned into films”. Reintroducing the same argument in a later paragraph, Whittaker seeks to reinforce the importance of preserving theatre alongside cinema as he maintains that “…cinema…should not mean the destruction of theatre…” The noun “destruction” is inserted to once again reduce the appeal of cinema by representing it as a callous force that seeks to contribute to the demise of theatre. In this way, Whittaker attempts to illicit fear within his audience to urge them to save this threatened form of art. Attempting to establish the benefits of theatre in juxtaposition to film, he conjures a powerful metaphor of theatre as a “mirror which can be held up to society by the hands of a great master of prose” to engrain the importance of this art form within his readership as something truly intricate which can deeply affect its viewers by allowing celebrated play writes to continue to communicate with their modern audiences.
Developing his previous argument further, Whittaker opines that to be a successful adaptation, films must be true to the original production’s plot. By adopting a more critical tone signalled by the use of scathing vocabulary such as “remove…mockery…wounded”, almost the language of warfare, he stresses to the audience the significance of “…making a mockery of an already wounded art form.” To appear less biased, Whittaker elucidates on the benefits of “cinematic adaptations”, namely that “…mistakes and…poor performances…” can be corrected, attempting to appeal to cinema lovers before proceeding to lay criticism that “…we lose the power of understanding that this performer’s soul is wholly invested in this…performance.” here attempting to gain the assent of a broader audience as he subtly accentuates that only in the theatre can a viewer gain a wholly intimate experience – one of the many reasons why this true form of art should be preserved. To accentuate the dichotomy between a poor adaptation and the actual play, Whittaker describes Hamlet and its 2000 adaptation side by side both verbally and visually, adding yet another dimension to his contention. “The Prince of Denmark” is compared to “Ethan Hawke” as “…a snivelling, spoilt film student”. The contrast between their position on the social scale– the original an aristocrat, the modern a student - not only emphasises just how out of touch this film is, but the juxtaposed alliteration of “s” in his description of Hawke is aimed at evoking the contempt which Whittaker has for the inaccuracy of Almereyda’s creation. This is given powerful visual force where Branaugh’s adaption of Hamlet is labelled as “doing it right” whereas Hawke’s is the opposite - “doing it wrong”. Furthermore, Branaugh’s hamlet turning his towards us, fully focusing on an extravagant banquet hall is shown to be far more appropriate than the more self-determined and egocentric Hawke whose eyes are squarely focused on an electronic display. Indeed, perhaps the dark colour of this cover is designed to represent the condemnable lack of faith which the “modern Hamlet” has to the original’s plot. In order to lighten the mood after his scathing attack, Whittaker seeks to amuse his audience with the jocular comment that “The Bard must be rolling over his grave.” Yet, this comment is also designed to establish a subtler point; that adaptions of famous playwright’s “masterpiece” which are “heavily stylised animation-fest” is most reprehensible and disrespectful to the theatre’s great talents.
Throughout his opinion piece, Whittaker is empathic in his prose. Whilst his article is most likely to resonate with lovers of the theatre due to the author’s heavy criticism of film, his concessions and optimism that “…there is a future where theatre and film can coexist” is likely to gain the accord of those who are not so intimately connected to the theatre. Similar to the majority of the piece, Whittaker attempts to leave his audience with a lasting sense of hope. He adopts a jovial tenor as he calls for a “merge between the new and the old…bring[ing] the world of theatre to a whole new audience”, again showing that what may be considered elitist is nowadays a medium of entertainment for all in society to revel in. Thus, by his conclusion he seeks to garner the support of various sectors of his audience
Home
Help
Search
Login
