Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection on theatre
Examine and evaluate aristotle's theory of tragedy
Reflection on theatre
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection on theatre
Works of Literature that I have studied in depth and others that I am acquainted with have challenged me significantly, for they have made me question that which I already seem to know. Often, society bears witness to a few significant individuals who are able to impact it to the extent that they are able to reconstruct and divert the course of history. Such individuals are who we call ‘genius’. In literature too, the notion of a genius is explored to depict the struggle of mankind to attain the ideal. In other words, while it is true that geniuses may come and go, the idea of genius is central to the human experience that is not to leave it sometime soon. Therefore, genius is characterized by its innate capability to escape the ultimate …show more content…
Stoppardian plays hold up the mirror to nature, exploring the relationship between the real and the imaginary in action and providing a meta-comment on the structure, representation and action of dramatic art. By taking the more peripheral characters, Stoppard’s multi-faceted play set in Elizabethan times and re-theatricalizing it so as to emphasize the artifice eyes of the real. Just as a vestige of the real, was complex in the Renaissance, in Stoppardian times, he has shattered the architecture of theatrical division and mimetic presuppositions and flipped them. It is the characters that are too aware, in an enfranchised way, of their being-as-playing a role that is too confined. Hence trivia, improve invention in a way that recomposes the diegetic nature of dramatic representation. I think the question is not ‘which is more real’ but ‘is there any real’? that allows Stoppard the formal inventiveness of his dramatic structure but also some really inventive, theatricality and verbal wit. Even in the play like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, these characters seem to be more real when engaged in the fictive role Shakespeare created for actors to play. Arcadia dramatizes a meeting point between pure language and pure thoughts falling within the Aristotelian framework . Sidley Park being the place for action is the essential language of signs, of love and of erroneous discourses therefore can be juxtaposed with the place where the scientific discoveries can be made
... to those viewing the performance. The audience must focus their attention of the happenings and the words being portrayed on stage or screen or they will easily miss the double meaning Stoppard intended in each scene of the play. The human motivation is inseparably connected with the theme of life and death that runs through the play, for it is as the two are about to die that they observe that maybe they could have made a different decision, one that would let them remain alive and free they only missed their opportunity to make that choice. Stoppard wanted his play to express more meaning and different messages to his audience but he desired for them to search the play and pay close attention to the different meanings present so they could gain the most possible from the play and those who did not understand would walk away not understanding how much they missed.
Throughout the play Hamlet, there are many symbols, characters, themes and motifs which have very significant roles. Within the context of characters, those with the greatest impact are more often the major characters than the less significant. However, in the case of one pair of characters, it is rather the opposite. The use of the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet is for more than just comic relief. They are a representation of the betrayal and dishonesty that runs deep within the play.
Firstly I would set this play in the 21st century so that a modern audience could relate to it. Algernon, one of the main characters in the play, would live in a luxury apartment in the centre of London, over looking the River Thames. His apartment would have a minimalist theme to it and would be influenced by aesthetic; for example he would have a piece of abstract art on the wall for no reason other than that he thinks it looks nice.
In his essay “On the Tragedies of Shakespeare,” Charles Lamb criticizes the theatrical performances of Shakespeare for providing an experience that inherently provides at worst, a misrepresentation or at best, a shallow representation of a particular character’s emotional depth. This is not to say that Lamb is necessarily criticizing bad acting, but rather he argues that the activities of acting and judging of acting raise “non-essentials” to an unjustified importance that is “injurious to the main interest of the play.” In other words, the viewer’s experience of watching a play is an experience inferior to a reader’s experience of reading the play. It is precisely for this reason that dramatic plays, such as Byron’s Manfred, cannot be staged. The experience of reading Manfred, a closet drama about Manfred, a noble tormented by his guilt for a mysterious transgression, provides a more emotionally intense experience than seeing the play acted out. The chamois hunter’s struggle and eventual failure to empathize with Manfred’s emotional turbulence in Act II, Scene I of Manfred can be interpreted as an experience which parallels the inevitable emotional chasm between audience and characters and ultimately hinders the audience’s sense of character empathy.
Stoppard was a long established playwright by this time; hence classical references will be more understood and even expected in a play about a classicist. With its star writer and subject matter, the audience of the play is therefore going to be made up of a number of certain types, from scholars, poets, and members of society that frequently use the theatres. However, Stoppard does take time to eloquently explain certain principles and scholarly cruxes to a layman audience. The fact that he is a popular playwright would have also attracted the audience to attend the play. To open this play to an audience that is more interested in the writer than the subject, as well as non-classicists, Stoppard uses characters of Houseman’s life to be ignorant to the audience, so they can ask questions for them; such as, in Jacksons dual role as Loved One of Houseman and mouthpiece of the audience.
In this essay I shall be writing about why I agree that with the play,
Inspired by Beckett’s literary style, particularly in ‘Waiting for Godot’, Stoppard wrote ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead’. As a result of this, many comparisons can be drawn between these two plays. Stoppard’s writing was also influenced by Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as minor characters exist within Shakespeare’s world providing Stoppard with his protagonists. However, the play is not an attempt to rewrite ‘Waiting for Godot’ in a framework of Shakespeare’s drama.
Genius is still a poplar creation myth that is being followed and taught in the current culture of today. The Genius myth begins like this; in the beginning God a spirit who is neither male nor female created the universe. At this time Earth was a void and was formless, covered in total darkness. Earth was also covered in a raging ocean and
Hamlet makes use of the idea of theatrical performance through characters presenting themselves falsely to others – from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern spying on Hamlet to gain favor with the King, to Hamlet himself playing the part of a madman – and through the play within the play, The Mousetrap. This essay will discuss the ways in which Hamlet explores the idea of theatrical performance, ‘acting’, through analysis of the characters and the ‘roles’ they adopt, specifically that of Hamlet and Claudius. The idea, or the theme of theatrical performance is not an uncommon literary element of Shakespearean works, the most famous of which to encompass this idea being As You Like It. This essay will also briefly explore the ways in which Hamlet reminds its audience of the stark difference between daily life and dramatization of life in the theatre.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet was written in the sixteenth century Elizabethan historical context, where certainty was questioned and there was a growing importance of individuals and their choice as opposed to fate. Influenced by the Renaissance, Shakespeare wrote in the tradition of the revenge tragedy. Stoppard however, who was living in a time of disillusionment due to the tragedies of two world wars, was influenced by the existential movement. Disregarding the past and future due to a lack of trust, Stoppard wrote in a tradition known as the Theatre of the Absurd incorporating existentialism. He uses various processes to adapt and transform the values and ideas influenced by the sixteenth century Elizabethan context in Hamlet to reflect the twentieth century evasion of reality unless it is in a reflexive and directionless present.
The transformation of a Shakespearean Revenge Tragedy into an Absurd Drama means a considerable change in structure from a well-structured and rigid format, into a chaotic and formless play. Stoppard deliberately alters the configuration of the play to create a confusing atmosphere, which creates the exact feeling of society in the 1960s- no definites or certainties to rely on. Language portrays meaning in both plays- the language of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead differs to that of Hamlet. Stoppard employs meaningless colloquial exchanges, such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s question game, which strongly contrasts to Shakespearean elaborate and poetic verse, as seen throughout the play, especially in Hamlet’s soliloquies- “There is sp...
...s is or is not the loftiest intelligence -- whether much that is glorious- whether all that is profound -- does not spring from disease of thought -- from moods of mind exalted at the expense of the general intellect.” (Allan Poe)
First, re: Keats: his letter addresses something that I've been wondering about "genius." I'm reminded of this popular quotation from Ulysses: "A man of genius makes no mistakes. His errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery." If Genius (I love that it's capitalized) is some sort of spectral or seraphic presence independent of mind, then it seems to visit or attach itself to only a few people every generation. Why is it so selective? This is a superstitious explanation for "genius," of course, and we know statistically that genius IQs really are rare. But I've been seeing this wonderful psychyoga instructor who is also a clairvoyant, and she insists that "everyone has genius inside them." This could be New Age, kumbaya claptrap, but I think she's right; therefore, Joyce (perhaps unwittingly) is talking about everyone (my professor used to say, "Love your mistakes!" at the end of every class). But how do people access genius so quickly (precocity/child prodigies) and so easily (the daily, random assemblage of great poems)?
The first main area of art and reality colliding in the play is the existence of characters who are referred to as Characters. Pirandello stretches the bounds of meta-theater by having actors portray Characters who swear they are not actors, when faced with other actors playing actual actors and a Director. The layers of unraveling of reality are astounding. The Characters must try and convince not only the Actors and the Producer of their true nature, but also the audience. Pirandello must convey his beliefs about the essence of art through the mouths of Characters seemingly unattached to the actuality of the theater around them. In the play, the Producer acts on stage in place of the author, questioning the sincerity and the true nature of the Characters, who become his r...