Since the last reflection post, I would say that I have really focused on our reading and analyzing techniques. Through annotating both The American Dream and Death of A Salesman, I have really started to notice both the minutia and the overarching themes, along with the differences between those two. I especially liked our theme discussion of The American Dream, where we went through and listed out the thematic motifs and eventually came down to our final theme statement. This process really helped me understand different elements of the play, and how theme transcends the story and acts more or less like a life lesson. We repeated this exercise with "Promises like Pie-Crust," and I found that our discussions were getting more efficient and focused, especially with Ms. Holmes guiding us through the title's allusion.
Watching Death of A Salesman was a very helpful experience because, even while annotating afterward, the text's transitions into Willy Loman's flashback scenes are hard to understand. I almost wish that we could see an acted out version of The American Dream, for it might reveal more meaning in certain moments of the play through a visual representation of the action. In addition, I learned another acronym for big reads (S.T.I.F.S.), and I thought that this different technique helped reinforce the idea of big vs. little picture. This last week, we learned some new ideas on the definition of tragedy, especially how that idea has changed between the ancient Greek and modern eras. After reading the articles last Friday, I was left with the idea that Death of A Salesman is a tragedy. Though we are still ruminating on this idea, I still think that this story has many things in common with Shakespearean tragedies, like Macbeth and Othello, especially with regards to the idea of an individual fall. As we continue in our discussion of the text, I hope to gain a better grasp of this along with some of the overarching messages in the play. As I annotated, I felt like there were some repeating motifs, but I was not sure about their significance or contribution to the meaning, such as the water or the dynamic between Willy and Charley.
Going back to the idea of analyzing texts, I thought that the multiple choice practice activities were also helpful. Having already done some in the summer, I felt more prepared this time (especially with Ms. Holmes' strategies). One of the things about this class that is rather surprising to me is the lack of specific units. In my previous lit classes, there was always a framework to guide the activities we did in class, but with A.P. lit, it's almost like I come to class with no idea about what we'll cover next (other than the list of novels). In a way, I would say that the articles and discussions have made me start thinking on my feet more, which will definitely be a useful skill come May.
As we continue along on our intellectual quest, I hope to continue checking in on poetry, which I still have some trouble analyzing, and I also hope to continue building on my knowledge of terminology, so that I can effectively respond to the texts we read.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Open Prompts, Part One - No. 2
For this post, I am reviewing responses to the 2009 exam. The prompt is: "A symbol is an object, action, or event that represents something or that creates a range of associations beyond itself. In literary works a symbol can express an idea, clarify meaning, or enlarge literal meaning. Select a novel or play and, focusing on one symbol, write an essay analyzing how that symbol functions in the work and what it reveals about the characters or themes of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot." I actually liked this prompt because it is a bit more clear about that magic A.P. question of meaning.
Student 3A:
I think that this student did a great job in their analysis of Ibsen's The Wild Duck, and though there were some minor flaws (some syntax errors and semi-illegible handwriting), I believe that this student really earned the nine points given to him/her by the grader. Though I have never read any of Ibsen's work, this student used enough plot details to establish a sufficient amount of context for their point, such as in their description of Greggers: "who wishes to expose... a horrible act... to serve his own ends." This detail really helped me understand the conflict that was set up in the metaphor between the duck and dog and the Hjalmar family and Greggers, respectively. Throughout the essay, 3A tied the plot events that s/he described back to the duck, and the overall meaning of the play. I particularly liked their description of the duck's meaning at the conclusion of the story with Hedvig's reaction to Greggers' revelation. Describing how Hedvig shot herself after hearing the ugly truth, 3A tied this event back to both the original idea that the duck represents the Hjalmars' fantasy of happiness, but also added a deeper level of insight by describing the duck as a metaphor for "innocence," which Hedvig was "unwilling to part with." This student did a fantastic job of recognizing and elaborating on a symbol in their chosen text as well as connecting this symbol to the meaning of the the story.
Student 3B:
Honestly, I was leaning more towards a five than a six after reading this essay. This student did choose a symbol and explain its significance to the text with the lampshade representing "covering up the truth." However, for the most part, I felt that s/he just added in related details from the plot and never really took the time to explain the symbol's meaning further than how it characterizes Blanche Dubois. For example they wrote, "The reader becomes accustomed to not trusting anything Blanche says... The lampshade symbolizes her fantastical and unreal view of things." Though this sentence goes along with the writer's established idea on the lampshade, there is almost no connection made between the details listed in those phrases and the symbol itself. Instead the writer just describes different instances of Blanche hiding the truth and then just restates their characterization of Blanche as secretive. In addition, they never made any connection to the overall message or theme of the story, but rather, they continually described how the lampshade is like a metaphor for Blanche. On a side note, they also had a lot of grammatical errors such as a general disregard for apostrophes in the beginning. This writer did an adequate, but rather mediocre job at explaining their reasoning, and the essay would have benefited from less character details and more analysis of the symbol's value in the overall text.
Student 3C:
It's funny how in this set of essays, the handwriting gets much neater as the score goes down. This writer did a great job of recognizing and offering a primary meaning for the symbol of the machete, but never really went beyond that. The essay consisted almost entirely of details with very shallow analysis that was often irrelevant to the meaning or significance that it provided to the story. They wrote, "Okonkwo never let a woman touch his machete because that would defeat its purpose of being symbolic." This sentence makes no sense and leads to a random discussion of African women in the story. To strengthen whatever argument they were trying to make, this writer could have tried to reference some female characters in the story and contrast the machete's link to Okonkwo's manhood with some feminine characteristics. With regards to syntax and style, I almost felt like I was reading work from a seventh grader (no offense intended, it's just my opinion); their sentences were almost always ten words or less and they even slipped in some Is, which detracts from the seriousness of the essay. In all, though the writer chose and stuck with a symbol throughout this essay, they had very little discussion of the meaning of the symbol and thus never truly answered the prompt; I would give it a 3/9.
Student 3A:
I think that this student did a great job in their analysis of Ibsen's The Wild Duck, and though there were some minor flaws (some syntax errors and semi-illegible handwriting), I believe that this student really earned the nine points given to him/her by the grader. Though I have never read any of Ibsen's work, this student used enough plot details to establish a sufficient amount of context for their point, such as in their description of Greggers: "who wishes to expose... a horrible act... to serve his own ends." This detail really helped me understand the conflict that was set up in the metaphor between the duck and dog and the Hjalmar family and Greggers, respectively. Throughout the essay, 3A tied the plot events that s/he described back to the duck, and the overall meaning of the play. I particularly liked their description of the duck's meaning at the conclusion of the story with Hedvig's reaction to Greggers' revelation. Describing how Hedvig shot herself after hearing the ugly truth, 3A tied this event back to both the original idea that the duck represents the Hjalmars' fantasy of happiness, but also added a deeper level of insight by describing the duck as a metaphor for "innocence," which Hedvig was "unwilling to part with." This student did a fantastic job of recognizing and elaborating on a symbol in their chosen text as well as connecting this symbol to the meaning of the the story.
Student 3B:
Honestly, I was leaning more towards a five than a six after reading this essay. This student did choose a symbol and explain its significance to the text with the lampshade representing "covering up the truth." However, for the most part, I felt that s/he just added in related details from the plot and never really took the time to explain the symbol's meaning further than how it characterizes Blanche Dubois. For example they wrote, "The reader becomes accustomed to not trusting anything Blanche says... The lampshade symbolizes her fantastical and unreal view of things." Though this sentence goes along with the writer's established idea on the lampshade, there is almost no connection made between the details listed in those phrases and the symbol itself. Instead the writer just describes different instances of Blanche hiding the truth and then just restates their characterization of Blanche as secretive. In addition, they never made any connection to the overall message or theme of the story, but rather, they continually described how the lampshade is like a metaphor for Blanche. On a side note, they also had a lot of grammatical errors such as a general disregard for apostrophes in the beginning. This writer did an adequate, but rather mediocre job at explaining their reasoning, and the essay would have benefited from less character details and more analysis of the symbol's value in the overall text.
Student 3C:
It's funny how in this set of essays, the handwriting gets much neater as the score goes down. This writer did a great job of recognizing and offering a primary meaning for the symbol of the machete, but never really went beyond that. The essay consisted almost entirely of details with very shallow analysis that was often irrelevant to the meaning or significance that it provided to the story. They wrote, "Okonkwo never let a woman touch his machete because that would defeat its purpose of being symbolic." This sentence makes no sense and leads to a random discussion of African women in the story. To strengthen whatever argument they were trying to make, this writer could have tried to reference some female characters in the story and contrast the machete's link to Okonkwo's manhood with some feminine characteristics. With regards to syntax and style, I almost felt like I was reading work from a seventh grader (no offense intended, it's just my opinion); their sentences were almost always ten words or less and they even slipped in some Is, which detracts from the seriousness of the essay. In all, though the writer chose and stuck with a symbol throughout this essay, they had very little discussion of the meaning of the symbol and thus never truly answered the prompt; I would give it a 3/9.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Summary & Analysis: The American Dream
The Basics: Edward Albee wrote this play from 1959-1960, and it draws inspiration from the rising trends of the mid 20th century, especially consumerism and feminism. The play takes place in a generic, drab apartment from the 1950s, and all of the action seen by the audience occurs in the living room, which is rather symmetrical. There are only five characters in this play:
1) Mommy is the alpha-male of the group. She attempts to manipulate and dominate every situation and considers any sort of response from other characters to be a challenge, especially Grandma. Along with Daddy, she is rarely able to attach any sort of sentimentality to anything. Instead, she is worried the most about attaining satisfaction in exchange for whatever she spends on something; she basically loses all emotions and compassion when she cannot achieve satisfaction.
2) Daddy takes on the role of the woman-of-the-house in the play. He is almost always submissive towards anything that Mommy says to him, and it is heavily implied that he has recently undergone a sex-change operation, which serves as his ultimate emasculation. Though he is rather empty (in an emotional sense), Daddy does still see reason and understands true morals, as opposed to Mommy, who has really lost her entire ability to care for others.
3) Grandma acts as a foil for Mommy and Daddy, and she often challenges/breaks any tensions or delusions that build up among characters. In particular, she often easily foils the intense sexual tension that rises between Mommy and Daddy. Grandma is also rather androgynous in that her gender does not play a major role in her characterization; rather, it is her age and experience that develops her as the rational and moral beacon of light in the midst of the apathetic and emotionless Mommy and Daddy.
4) Mrs. Barker plays into the generational trend of Mommy and Daddy, especially with regards to her lack of morals. She appears later in the play and initially acts as another challenge to Mommy's authority due to the fact that she is higher up in the social ladder than Mommy. However, this conflict fades away, and she becomes significant toward the end because she takes an understanding attitude towards Grandma and actually listens to her.
5) The Young Man (A.K.A. the American dream) is the other "outsider" (meaning not in the actual family... yet), who shows up towards the end of the play. He mainly interacts with Grandma, telling her his life story, which reveals that his twin was the original adopted child that Mrs. Barker sold to Mommy and Daddy, who ended up mutilating and killing it in their pursuit of satisfaction. He is a handsome, emotionless shell that will do anything for money and blends into the surrounding social norms to get by.
Plot:
The story begins with Mommy and Daddy discussing seemingly random topics like their appliances, the sloth of the maintenance workers who have not arrived yet, and the fact that people can't achieve satisfaction. Mommy eventually takes over the conversation, forcing Daddy to listen to a story of how she went to a store, bought a hat, met a woman who disputed with her on the color (beige or wheat) of the hat, and eventually forced her way into getting a new one. Grandma shows up with a large stack of boxes, initially denying to explain their contents/significance, but later on she continually tries to do so with the other characters ignoring her. When Grandma arrives, it leads to a series of minor verbal scuffles between Mommy and Grandma, where each derides the other while Daddy watches. Then the bell rings, and Daddy is to go open the door, but he hesitates, which leads to intense "sexual" tension between Mommy and Daddy, where Mommy appeals to his masculinity (which ironically isn't there since he has had a sex change). Ultimately, Daddy does open the door to find Mrs. Barker on the other side, who enters but has completely forgotten her business there. Grandma hints that she knows the reason, but Mommy, in her continuing ire, does not allow her to speak. Eventually, Mommy and Daddy exit the room and get lost within the apartment, leaving Grandma and Mrs. Barker alone. Grandma explains Mrs. Barker's purpose of coming (as the adoption lady, she sold Mommy and Daddy their original child, who ended up being "unsatisfactory"), but she does not really understand and ends up going to see Mommy in the kitchen. Meanwhile, a Young Man rings at the door bell, and speaks with Grandma, who recognizes him as the twin of the original "bumble" or adopted child. Mrs. Barker briefly returns and Grandma attempts to explain her purpose again and succeeds this time. Then, she leaves the Young Man with Mommy and Daddy, setting up the scenario through which Mommy and Daddy get a new child. Mommy cries when she realizes that Grandma has left, but almost immediately forgets her woe when she sees the Young Man. With this, the four characters celebrate their "satisfaction." Unbeknownst to them, Grandma is actually nearby, sitting offstage (only the Young Man notices her) and breaking the fourth wall. Finally, Grandma ends the play at the celebration scene, implying that though the characters are happy in this moment, the paradigm of no satisfaction (as in the beginning) will return.
Voice/Style:
Though there is not a speaker or narrator in the drama, most of the dialogue takes on a childish tone, since most of the characters speak in a basic manner with a great lack of understanding. This is especially true of Mommy, Daddy, and Mrs. Barker, who continuously forget things throughout the story, and have little to no understanding of morals. From Albee's point-of-view, he is trying to comment on the changes that have begun taking place in society, especially the rise of materialism and the rising place of women in society through equality movements, as exaggerated through Mommy and Daddy's role reversal. He uses some interesting imagery to do this, such as "sticky wet". The lack of emotions and morals is exemplified by the intense details of the mutilation of the bumble. In addition, there are many significant symbols in the play. Grandma's boxes and their contents represent sentimental memories of the past, which people had to earn in the old American ideals. The young man represents the appeal of the new American dream, but his lack of emotions refers to the lack of actual substance in this dream. Thus, Albee similarly uses intense symbolism to get his point across, which contributes to the childish, derisive, and immoral tone he takes as he deals with the issues.
Quotes:
"Grandma: (A little sadly) I don't know why I bother to take them with me... you know... the things one accumulates." --p.120
This is significant because it signals the departure of the old American dream, which has tried its best to satisfy the endless, emotionless, materialistic desires of the new generation but must now make way for the new dream, which though lacking in substance can cater to these needs. To me, it symbolizes the fact that the next generation has lost its sentimentality and ability to experience true human emotion.
"Mrs. Barker: Ambition! That's the ticket..., but he is the Village Idiot." --p. 84
I found this passage significant because it calls back to the idea of the uselessness of language to adequately get ideas across. In particular, it brings to light the fact that Mrs. Barker has no real understanding of societal norms, even though she has climbed the ladder, or that society has become so perverted that it cannot recognize its own inconsistencies.
Theme Statement:
In The American Dream, Albee warns that the current generation has lost its connection to the traditional ideals of the original American dream, having replaced its sentiments and merit with a baseless, materialistic drive for complete satisfaction, but there is hope for future generations, who may choose to revert back to older values.
The title of the play sets up the piece to be a commentary on the idea of the American dream, which, according to Albee, has changed significantly since the days of pioneer-stock, like Grandma. In particular the dynamic between Mommy and Daddy is a continuous reminder of the emotional and moral failings of the new American dream, which is solidified with the arrival of the Young Man (or the shell). The cyclical, repetitive plot and language also act as allusions to the idea that satisfaction can never be completely attained, and that true satisfaction lies with the older American ideal of earning something, rather than acquiring it because this process just leads to unending expectations of more and more. Thus, the absurdist elements point out the stupidity of that which Albee intends to criticize/warn his audience about. However, the hope is clearly symbolized through Grandma breaking the fourth wall and allowing the audience to decide which dream they intend to pursue.
1) Mommy is the alpha-male of the group. She attempts to manipulate and dominate every situation and considers any sort of response from other characters to be a challenge, especially Grandma. Along with Daddy, she is rarely able to attach any sort of sentimentality to anything. Instead, she is worried the most about attaining satisfaction in exchange for whatever she spends on something; she basically loses all emotions and compassion when she cannot achieve satisfaction.
2) Daddy takes on the role of the woman-of-the-house in the play. He is almost always submissive towards anything that Mommy says to him, and it is heavily implied that he has recently undergone a sex-change operation, which serves as his ultimate emasculation. Though he is rather empty (in an emotional sense), Daddy does still see reason and understands true morals, as opposed to Mommy, who has really lost her entire ability to care for others.
3) Grandma acts as a foil for Mommy and Daddy, and she often challenges/breaks any tensions or delusions that build up among characters. In particular, she often easily foils the intense sexual tension that rises between Mommy and Daddy. Grandma is also rather androgynous in that her gender does not play a major role in her characterization; rather, it is her age and experience that develops her as the rational and moral beacon of light in the midst of the apathetic and emotionless Mommy and Daddy.
4) Mrs. Barker plays into the generational trend of Mommy and Daddy, especially with regards to her lack of morals. She appears later in the play and initially acts as another challenge to Mommy's authority due to the fact that she is higher up in the social ladder than Mommy. However, this conflict fades away, and she becomes significant toward the end because she takes an understanding attitude towards Grandma and actually listens to her.
5) The Young Man (A.K.A. the American dream) is the other "outsider" (meaning not in the actual family... yet), who shows up towards the end of the play. He mainly interacts with Grandma, telling her his life story, which reveals that his twin was the original adopted child that Mrs. Barker sold to Mommy and Daddy, who ended up mutilating and killing it in their pursuit of satisfaction. He is a handsome, emotionless shell that will do anything for money and blends into the surrounding social norms to get by.
Plot:
The story begins with Mommy and Daddy discussing seemingly random topics like their appliances, the sloth of the maintenance workers who have not arrived yet, and the fact that people can't achieve satisfaction. Mommy eventually takes over the conversation, forcing Daddy to listen to a story of how she went to a store, bought a hat, met a woman who disputed with her on the color (beige or wheat) of the hat, and eventually forced her way into getting a new one. Grandma shows up with a large stack of boxes, initially denying to explain their contents/significance, but later on she continually tries to do so with the other characters ignoring her. When Grandma arrives, it leads to a series of minor verbal scuffles between Mommy and Grandma, where each derides the other while Daddy watches. Then the bell rings, and Daddy is to go open the door, but he hesitates, which leads to intense "sexual" tension between Mommy and Daddy, where Mommy appeals to his masculinity (which ironically isn't there since he has had a sex change). Ultimately, Daddy does open the door to find Mrs. Barker on the other side, who enters but has completely forgotten her business there. Grandma hints that she knows the reason, but Mommy, in her continuing ire, does not allow her to speak. Eventually, Mommy and Daddy exit the room and get lost within the apartment, leaving Grandma and Mrs. Barker alone. Grandma explains Mrs. Barker's purpose of coming (as the adoption lady, she sold Mommy and Daddy their original child, who ended up being "unsatisfactory"), but she does not really understand and ends up going to see Mommy in the kitchen. Meanwhile, a Young Man rings at the door bell, and speaks with Grandma, who recognizes him as the twin of the original "bumble" or adopted child. Mrs. Barker briefly returns and Grandma attempts to explain her purpose again and succeeds this time. Then, she leaves the Young Man with Mommy and Daddy, setting up the scenario through which Mommy and Daddy get a new child. Mommy cries when she realizes that Grandma has left, but almost immediately forgets her woe when she sees the Young Man. With this, the four characters celebrate their "satisfaction." Unbeknownst to them, Grandma is actually nearby, sitting offstage (only the Young Man notices her) and breaking the fourth wall. Finally, Grandma ends the play at the celebration scene, implying that though the characters are happy in this moment, the paradigm of no satisfaction (as in the beginning) will return.
Voice/Style:
Though there is not a speaker or narrator in the drama, most of the dialogue takes on a childish tone, since most of the characters speak in a basic manner with a great lack of understanding. This is especially true of Mommy, Daddy, and Mrs. Barker, who continuously forget things throughout the story, and have little to no understanding of morals. From Albee's point-of-view, he is trying to comment on the changes that have begun taking place in society, especially the rise of materialism and the rising place of women in society through equality movements, as exaggerated through Mommy and Daddy's role reversal. He uses some interesting imagery to do this, such as "sticky wet". The lack of emotions and morals is exemplified by the intense details of the mutilation of the bumble. In addition, there are many significant symbols in the play. Grandma's boxes and their contents represent sentimental memories of the past, which people had to earn in the old American ideals. The young man represents the appeal of the new American dream, but his lack of emotions refers to the lack of actual substance in this dream. Thus, Albee similarly uses intense symbolism to get his point across, which contributes to the childish, derisive, and immoral tone he takes as he deals with the issues.
Quotes:
"Grandma: (A little sadly) I don't know why I bother to take them with me... you know... the things one accumulates." --p.120
This is significant because it signals the departure of the old American dream, which has tried its best to satisfy the endless, emotionless, materialistic desires of the new generation but must now make way for the new dream, which though lacking in substance can cater to these needs. To me, it symbolizes the fact that the next generation has lost its sentimentality and ability to experience true human emotion.
"Mrs. Barker: Ambition! That's the ticket..., but he is the Village Idiot." --p. 84
I found this passage significant because it calls back to the idea of the uselessness of language to adequately get ideas across. In particular, it brings to light the fact that Mrs. Barker has no real understanding of societal norms, even though she has climbed the ladder, or that society has become so perverted that it cannot recognize its own inconsistencies.
Theme Statement:
In The American Dream, Albee warns that the current generation has lost its connection to the traditional ideals of the original American dream, having replaced its sentiments and merit with a baseless, materialistic drive for complete satisfaction, but there is hope for future generations, who may choose to revert back to older values.
The title of the play sets up the piece to be a commentary on the idea of the American dream, which, according to Albee, has changed significantly since the days of pioneer-stock, like Grandma. In particular the dynamic between Mommy and Daddy is a continuous reminder of the emotional and moral failings of the new American dream, which is solidified with the arrival of the Young Man (or the shell). The cyclical, repetitive plot and language also act as allusions to the idea that satisfaction can never be completely attained, and that true satisfaction lies with the older American ideal of earning something, rather than acquiring it because this process just leads to unending expectations of more and more. Thus, the absurdist elements point out the stupidity of that which Albee intends to criticize/warn his audience about. However, the hope is clearly symbolized through Grandma breaking the fourth wall and allowing the audience to decide which dream they intend to pursue.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Close Reading No. 2
For this post, I chose another Slate article, "Romeo and Juliet," which can be found at: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2013/10/romeo_and_juliet_directed_by_downton_abbey_s_julian_fellowes_reviewed.html
This article is a movie review of the newest film inspired by Shakespeare's famous tragedy, Romeo and Juliet. In it, the author, Dana Stevens, offers mixed feelings about the film, leaving the reader with the idea that it is a rather well-made movie rendition of this story but with some flaws, which probably will not appeal to a wide audience under 20. Stevens uses three main areas of rhetoric to achieve this meaning: visual imagery, an interesting mix of diction, and effective selection of details.
Stevens uses imagery to highlight both the good and bad elements of the film. And since this is a film review, it follows that most of it is visual imagery. Stevens was especially impressed with the settings of the film, which she praised as "gorgeous." She writes, "Every scene seems to take place in a different fresco-adorned palace or pristinely preserved church." This sentence helps reinforce her interpretation of the setting by allowing the reader to paint pictures of idealized Italian villas and cathedrals; these pleasing images allow the reader to sort of forget Stevens' previous qualms with the film. On the other hand, Stevens also uses imagery to criticize the film, especially as she discusses the lack of chemistry between Romeo and Juliet. For example, she uses the phrases "model-handsome" and "magazine-ready looks" to describe Douglas Booth, the actor portraying Romeo. These images contrast with Stevens' picture of Hailee Steinfeld (Juliet), who she describes as "pretty in a normal-girl-on-the-street-way." Stevens creates these different images within the reader's mind to reinforce her argument that the two characters do not play well together, which causes the movie to lack the important focus on their relationship. Thus, by allowing the reader to visualize certain elements of the movie, Stevens helps the reader understand her mixed feelings about it.
For the most part, Stevens' diction is pretty colloquial, making the article easy to read. In many of her descriptions, Stevens uses words at a basic level that anyone with a basic high school vocabulary could understand, such as "swooning" and "idealism." These words are simple, straightforward and easily engender the positive meanings that Stevens is looking for. However, she also uses plenty of elevated words that stick out from the rest of the article, which speak to her expertise in the area as a movie reviewer. For example, the words "martinet" and "melange," which are rather uncommon (or at least the first one, which was completely new to me), are added into her "abusive" description of Juliet's father and the description of Romeo and Juliet's failed on-screen love, respectively. In addition to the air of literary knowledge that such words exude, they also have very specific meanings that help the reader get a better sense of the movie. For example, her characterization of Juliet's father as a martinet gives the reader an overly strict, negative image of the character. Though the average reader might not understand them, these word choices added in a level of sophistication to the piece. Through this mix of diction, Stevens adds to her different arguments, and leaves the reader with an impression of reliability.
Many of the specific details that Stevens includes in the article act to reinforce her differing ideas on the movie. In the beginning, she includes the fact that the script was written by the same person who did Downton Abbey, a show which has become popular for its high ratings and awards. This fact leaves the reader thinking that the film has to be at the same level of quality of that show, which Stevens believes it is in certain areas. In particular, many of the details of the review, such as the chemistry of Hessey and Whiting (another Romeo and Juliet pair), are used to compare the film in the context of other renditions of the story. These details act as evidence for Steven's points as well as reference points for the reader to generate their own conclusions on the film. Another example of this would be the reference to the recent appeal of fantasy stories like Twilight or Harry Potter to teenagers, which Stevens uses to prove her point that the film would not appeal much to a younger audience.
In this review, Stevens encourages her readers to try out the film for many of its great attributes, but she also warns her audience not to get their hopes too high due to some major defects, especially the failed on-screen pairing of Romeo and Juliet. Through the rhetorical techniques of imagery, diction, and details, Stevens successfully imparts this message to her audience.
This article is a movie review of the newest film inspired by Shakespeare's famous tragedy, Romeo and Juliet. In it, the author, Dana Stevens, offers mixed feelings about the film, leaving the reader with the idea that it is a rather well-made movie rendition of this story but with some flaws, which probably will not appeal to a wide audience under 20. Stevens uses three main areas of rhetoric to achieve this meaning: visual imagery, an interesting mix of diction, and effective selection of details.
Stevens uses imagery to highlight both the good and bad elements of the film. And since this is a film review, it follows that most of it is visual imagery. Stevens was especially impressed with the settings of the film, which she praised as "gorgeous." She writes, "Every scene seems to take place in a different fresco-adorned palace or pristinely preserved church." This sentence helps reinforce her interpretation of the setting by allowing the reader to paint pictures of idealized Italian villas and cathedrals; these pleasing images allow the reader to sort of forget Stevens' previous qualms with the film. On the other hand, Stevens also uses imagery to criticize the film, especially as she discusses the lack of chemistry between Romeo and Juliet. For example, she uses the phrases "model-handsome" and "magazine-ready looks" to describe Douglas Booth, the actor portraying Romeo. These images contrast with Stevens' picture of Hailee Steinfeld (Juliet), who she describes as "pretty in a normal-girl-on-the-street-way." Stevens creates these different images within the reader's mind to reinforce her argument that the two characters do not play well together, which causes the movie to lack the important focus on their relationship. Thus, by allowing the reader to visualize certain elements of the movie, Stevens helps the reader understand her mixed feelings about it.
For the most part, Stevens' diction is pretty colloquial, making the article easy to read. In many of her descriptions, Stevens uses words at a basic level that anyone with a basic high school vocabulary could understand, such as "swooning" and "idealism." These words are simple, straightforward and easily engender the positive meanings that Stevens is looking for. However, she also uses plenty of elevated words that stick out from the rest of the article, which speak to her expertise in the area as a movie reviewer. For example, the words "martinet" and "melange," which are rather uncommon (or at least the first one, which was completely new to me), are added into her "abusive" description of Juliet's father and the description of Romeo and Juliet's failed on-screen love, respectively. In addition to the air of literary knowledge that such words exude, they also have very specific meanings that help the reader get a better sense of the movie. For example, her characterization of Juliet's father as a martinet gives the reader an overly strict, negative image of the character. Though the average reader might not understand them, these word choices added in a level of sophistication to the piece. Through this mix of diction, Stevens adds to her different arguments, and leaves the reader with an impression of reliability.
Many of the specific details that Stevens includes in the article act to reinforce her differing ideas on the movie. In the beginning, she includes the fact that the script was written by the same person who did Downton Abbey, a show which has become popular for its high ratings and awards. This fact leaves the reader thinking that the film has to be at the same level of quality of that show, which Stevens believes it is in certain areas. In particular, many of the details of the review, such as the chemistry of Hessey and Whiting (another Romeo and Juliet pair), are used to compare the film in the context of other renditions of the story. These details act as evidence for Steven's points as well as reference points for the reader to generate their own conclusions on the film. Another example of this would be the reference to the recent appeal of fantasy stories like Twilight or Harry Potter to teenagers, which Stevens uses to prove her point that the film would not appeal much to a younger audience.
In this review, Stevens encourages her readers to try out the film for many of its great attributes, but she also warns her audience not to get their hopes too high due to some major defects, especially the failed on-screen pairing of Romeo and Juliet. Through the rhetorical techniques of imagery, diction, and details, Stevens successfully imparts this message to her audience.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)