caitlyn duer – Script Analysis

More Differences from Reality

BY ALEJANDRO (I think this was written by me)

We do not experience the confusion about nature, time, and the seasons that Vladimir and Estragon have. At different points in the play they argue about when the tree did or did not have leaves, whether the sun is rising or setting, and the like.
We rarely casually contemplate suicide as an entertaining diversion or “something to do”.
We do not constantly repeat phrases physical acts/tics, e.g. Pozzo’s vaporizer, the fixing of hats, various points throughout the play in which Vladimir and Estragon repeat the same lines over and over, changing them slightly each time.
We certainly do not have as much free time to sit and wait for someone who will never come.

Group Four Final Post

Themes (Adam)

Vice vs. Piety: Several character in the play seem to over indulge or in things or either are too strict. Measure for Measure attempts to punish those who are too lewd, and teach those who are too pious, by the time the end is reached.

Temptation: Whether a person can resist temptation is a sign of how good or wicked they actually are. Temptation plays on the tendency of human nature to be flawed and vulnerable, and those who allow themselves to be tempted too far are weak of character.

Disguise: Disguise allows all of the Duke's plans to take place. Without disguise, and the way the Duke uses and abuses the privileges that this disguise affords him, many events in the play would not have taken place at all.

Moderation and mercy: These two things are the two necessary qualities of a ruler that Angelo lacks, and which also make him a poor judge. Every ruler must govern with an eye for human nature and its weaknesses. He must also show mercy for those who commit the same sins as the ruler himself.

Manipulation: Manipulation pays a huge role in the plot since most of the events in the throughout are manipulated by the Duke. Without his manipulation of people and events, Claudio would have died, Angelo have remained unexposed, and Mariana would not have gotten married. Justice depends upon the Duke's schemes and manipulations within the play, however self-serving his actions may turn out to be.

Actions vs. words: In Measure for many character say they are doing or will do one thing and then completely do the opposite. The Duke often announces that he is doing one thing, and then acts completely different from what he said he is doing. This causes the reader to question why the Duke would be deliberately misleading, and what his overall intent for this deception of leaving the city is.

Appearance vs. reality: This is especially seen in the character of Angelo. Angelo has the reputation and appearance of being good do not truly match who he is as an individual. This idea can also be extended to the city of Vienna itself which appears to be pretty and serene but instead hides a lot of sin.

Corruption: The city in this play (Vienna) is corrupt on many different levels. This corruption seems to spread from the city and affect Angelo who later becomes corrupt. This corruption seems to be the result of too much indulgence, or a belief that one will get away with one's crimes.

Using Others (Caitlyn)

One motif of Measure for Measure shows itself when characters use other people, or ideas of people, to achieve goals.

Some examples:

Angelo uses the idea of himself as a strictly pious ruler to demand sex from Isabella.

Claudio is willing to use Isabella to save his own life.

The duke uses the image of a friar, a virtuous and trustworthy person, to spy on others.

Isabella uses Mariana to save her virginity.

The duke attempts to use Barnardine to save Claudio; he then uses a dead pirate instead.

This motif ties in with the theme of the play, illustrated in the title. Obviously the characters are forced to measure the value of their own virginity, happiness, or social position in terms of each other. In addition, the characters are forced to measure each other. Shakespeare uses this tactic to explore how and why we judge others' actions and value certain people over others when it comes to achieving our personal goals.

Missing Person (Caitlyn)

THE DUKE
motivation: evaluate the trustworthiness of his subordinates and the success of his rule, bring order without appearing too harsh
obstacles: deception, brown-nosing from underlings, preservation of his reputation

what is he willing to do?: go incognito, deceive his subjects, lie
why would he do this?: he knows that that is the only way to get a subjective view of his government and fix its problemsavowed (why he says he does things) v. true (why he actually does things): says he puts Angelo in charge because he (Angelo) is a pious man, but it is really because the duke knows he will be a harsh ruler.

ANGELO
motivation: sex, unchallenged power
obstacles: the duke, keeping up appearances of propriety
what?: fail the duke, deceive, use sex as a weapon, lie, coerce
why?: he has the power, he must keep up appearances, he thinks the duke will never know
avowed v. true: he says he rules for virtue's sake but he is really hungry for power

CLAUDIO
motivation: love of Juliet/Isabella, survival
obstacles: the law, propriety
what?: sacrifice Isabella's virginity, die
why?: he is given no other choice (he must weigh the loves of Juliet and Isabella)
avowed v. true: appears torn between Juliet and Isabella, but is really just driven by fear of losing his life.

ISABELLA
motivation: love of Claudio, piety
obstacles: Angelo, the law, propriety
what?: lie, challenge Angelo, deceive, allow Claudio to die rather than her go to hell
why?: piety, value of god's law over humans'
avowed v. true: appears to value god above humanity but is still driven by her love for Claudio.

ESCALUS

motivation: support the duke, keep everyone happy through compassion and tolerance

obstacles: Angelo’s harsh rule, the duke’s need to question his own rule

what?: support the duke even when it seems his rule is causing pandemonium

why?: he believes that rulers should be compassionate and reasonable

avowed v. true: he supports the duke’s endorsement of Angelo, saying that he is the best man for the job. Though he has his doubts, he ultimately wants to support the duke’s decisions.

Image and Title (Alejandro)

Meassure for Meassure, it's no moon. (textual evidence to be provided separately)

It's no moon but it's so recurrent and important. How do we meassure ourselves, how do we meassure others? What do we meassure with? WHAT'S THE SCALE, and most importantly, WHAT'S THE MEASSURE?

In this play by William Shakespeare there is no escape from action, the characters are doomed to face their fates. Each of the characters are distinct from one another, both in the ways they were conceived by the author and through the reader's, audience's, eyes and senses.

Distinctions and similarities between two blocks of contending forces (not necessarily opposing ones) :

The people from the state:

The Duke & Lord Angelo

The people from the people:

Claudio & Isabella

This distinction has been made in order to clarify the way these characters appear to be constructed in, and also because of what they represent in society. Both blocks are powerful given their own means in actuality, morality, politics, bed, appearances, religion, values, and law.

A close-up to the first block clearly strips away unnecessary weight and leaves the bones uncovered.

Ball states that characters gain meaning through performance rather than through text, while he puts forwards the importance of the skeletal nature of their definition distressing the focus on interpretation. Thus, this distinction needs to be done.

The first block, has been comprised to these two characters given their interactions.

The Duke's decision to step outside of the public arena gives Lord Angelo the reins of law. The Duke, nevertheless, seems to become passive in terms of decision but actually indulges in the most direct action. He steps into the arena as a different character, Friar, for direct intervention. Premeditatedly, he lets L.A take care of the situation in order to examine and expose this character given his lack of trust in him.

Reversely, in the second block Claudio asks Lucio to advert his sister about the situation given his knowledge and trust in her. He does so, not with the intention of examination but with hope and trust.

Claudio manipulates his sister virginity, her virtuousness and purity; which are all immaterial substances. Light ones in terms of real weight but solidly firm and rooted in her.

The Duke manipulates L.A.'s carnal debility to the seemingly corruptible and frail Isabella.

The woman-object of this story, Isabella, appears as a means. She is the means to freedom, as conceived by Claudio, and the subject for naughty intentions, as perceived by Lord Angelo.

Meassure by meassure, the deployment of action seems to be fated. Events fall under the expectations of the Duke and Claudio, but particularly the Duke. The latter, as a self-forced intermediary of God, offices his master plan beneath the surface. How does this relate to the title image?

Well, if we look the Duke's speech it always maintains a rhetorical structure. Everything he says builds up, forwards. He represents the master, knowledge. Although his position in society is not upon direct merit, he sticks to his role. Not only to appear fitted for his position, but the contrary. It is a character that is not caught in the realm of appearances, although he regards the superficial importance of things as powerful elements. This respect for the superficial world is made obvious by him adopting a different role to the eyes of others.

His temple, nevertheless, is internal. This characters' value lies in the acknowledgement of his duty. His duty is such because of his stock and lineage.

(AND NOW IS WHEN WE GET TO SPECIFICS)€¦ I will be editing this later on with the textual evidence and makeing a new post with the resume and identification of theme, different images, all according to Ball. I just thought it would be good if I posted some raw work to stimulate the discussion.

Bait-and-Switch Imagery (Caitlyn)

One recurring image in Measure for Measure is that of a bait-and-switch. A promise is extended to a character, only to have it fulfilled in a way that goes against the original plan. Usually the promise and the fulfillment are almost identical, creating a strong sense of irony. For instance:

Angelo is pious and strict against adulterers and takes over for the duke only to demand sex from Isabella. Vincentio is lax with adultery laws but leaves Angelo in charge in order to masquerade as a friar.

Angelo offers to not punish Claudio for adultery; however, the only way that can happen is if Isabella commits adultery, thus passing Claudio's sin onto his sister.

Isabella promises to unlawfully sleep with Angelo; instead, he is tricked into having an entirely legal tryst with Mariana.

Lucio constantly insults the duke when speaking to Vincentio as the friar; he later insults the friar to Vincentio as the duke.

Angelo sleeps with Mariana, then goes back on his word and demands to see Claudio's severed head.

The duke attempts to substitute Barnardine's head for Claudio's; Barnardine refuses to be executed.

The head of an executed man is demanded; the head of a pirate who died of natural causes is substituted.

The irony of the bait-and-switch imagery contributes to Shakespeare's theme of hypocrisy. Many of the substitutions are quite similar to what was originally promised, showing that arbitrary human demands are usually unreasonable and hypocritical.

Using Others

One motif of Measure for Measure shows itself when characters use other people, or ideas of people, to achieve goals.

Some examples:

Angelo uses the idea of himself as a strictly pious ruler to demand sex from Isabella.

Claudio is willing to use Isabella to save his own life.

The duke uses the image of a friar, a virtuous and trustworthy person, to spy on others.

Isabella uses Mariana to save her virginity.

The duke attempts to use Barnardine to save Claudio; he then uses a dead pirate instead.

This motif ties in with the theme of the play, illustrated in the title. Obviously the characters are forced to measure the value of their own virginity, happiness, or social position in terms of each other. In addition, the characters are forced to measure each other. Shakespeare uses this tactic to explore how and why we judge others’ actions and value certain people over others when it comes to achieving our personal goals.

Missing Person

THE DUKE
motivation: evaluate the trustworthiness of his underlings and the success of his rule
obstacles: deception, brown-nosing from underlings
what is he willing to do?: go incognito, deceive his subjects, lie
why would he do this?: he knows that that is the only way to get a subjective view of his government
avowed (why he says he does things) v. true (why he actually does things):

CLAUDIO
motivation: love of Juliet/Isabella, survival
obstacles: the law, propriety
what?: sacrifice Isabella’s virginity, die
why?: he is given no other choice (he must weigh the loves of Juliet and Isabella)
avowed v. true:

I’m unsure about the avowed versus true actions, or at least of how to articulate them. Could someone fill those in by any chance, or give me some ideas? Thanks.

Bait-and-Switch Imagery

Angelo offers to not punish Claudio for adultery; however, the only way that can happen is if Isabella commits adultery, thus passing Claudio’s sin onto his sister.

Isabella promises to unlawfully sleep with Angelo; instead, he is tricked into having an entirely legal tryst with Mariana.

Lucio constantly insults the duke when speaking to Vincentio as the friar; he later insults the friar to Vincentio as the duke.

Angelo sleeps with Mariana, then goes back on his word and demands to see Claudio’s severed head.

The duke attempts to substitute Barnardine’s head for Claudio’s; Barnardine refuses to be executed.

The head of an executed man is demanded; the head of a pirate who died of natural causes is substituted.

The irony of the bait-and-switch imagery contributes to Shakespeare’s theme of hypocrisy. Many of the substitutions are quite similar to what was originally promised, showing that arbitrary human demands are usually unreasonable and hypocritical.

Research – Postwar historical context

Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/53b.asp:

“For many generations and many decades, the American Dream has promised an egalitarian society and material prosperity. For many, the notion of prosperity remained just a dream”. The American ideals that Willy Loman holds are an American tradition. His views of the ability to make it big with a wink and a smile are not an anomaly; they are fostered by generations of success stories of very talented underdogs who did just that. Unfortunately, this becomes a dangerous notion when an ordinary man like Willy thinks himself to be something more.

However, for millions of Americans after the war, “the American Dream became a reality. Within their reach was the chance to have a house on their own land, a car, a dog, and 2.3 kids. Postwar affluence redefined the American Dream. Gone was the poverty borne of the Great Depression, and the years of wartime sacrifice were over. . . Automobiles once again rolled off the assembly lines of the Big Three: Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. The Interstate Highway Act authorized the construction of thousands of miles of high-speed roads that made living farther from work a possibility”. Suddenly after the war, there are not only those not fit for combat competing for success, but a surplus of Americans vying for the very things that Willy has been suffering for. Specifically, the accessibility of a personal automobile makes it even easier for energetic young salesmen to flood Willy’s area of expertise. This new affluence makes Willy and his sons even more redundant in both the workplace and society.

Arthur Miller has a marked distaste for the consumerism that came out of this period of prosperity. “In our big car civilization we still clutch to our breasts these chromium-plated iron hulks in the hope that they are salvation” (Bigsby xxx). Yet in Willy’s case, the perceived salvation of materialism causes him to lose any opportunity to be himself in the drive to become the ideal prosperous American.

Research – Miller’s life and parallels with the text

Branching out from Alex’s biography of Arthur Miller, I would like to point out some parallels between his early life and the Loman family’s experiences. The biographical notes in The Portable Arthur Miller state: “When he was asked recently in what way his plays were related to the events of his life, Miller replied, ‘In a sense all my plays are autobiographical.’ The artist creates his biography through his work even as the events of his life serve to shape him”. (Bigsby vii)

Miller was a Jewish middle-class New Yorker whose father was an immigrant from the former Austro-Hungarian empire. While their ethnicity and religion are never directly stated, it is widely accepted that the Lomans come from a similar background. Miller also was born and raised in New York, going to high school in Brooklyn (the home borough of the Lomans). Also as a young adult, he worked as a loader and shipping clerk in a warehouse. These experiences are reflected directly onto the lives of the Lomans, specifically Happy and Biff.

The most striking parallel, however, can be seen in Willy’s ideal of being “well liked”. In Timebends: A Life, Arthur Miller describes his father as “a fellow whom policemen are inclined to salute, headwaiters to find tables for, cab drivers to stop in the rain for, a man who will not eat in restaurants with thick water glasses, a man who has built one of the two or three largest coat manufacturing businesses in the country at the time and who cannot read or write any language” (Bigsby 2). Miller’s role model obviously created the mold for Willy’s ultimate measure of success. While Mr. Miller was not formally well-educated by any stretch of the imagination, he was prosperous and popular by dint of his prestige and likability.

Source: The Portable Arthur Miller. Christopher Bigsby, ed. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.

Caitlyn Duer – Dialogue (Preliminary Ideas)

The speech of the characters of Death of a Salesman belies their posts in life, concerning both class and family station. Ben has very precise language, filling in the gaps in Willy’s memories with perfect recall in clipped sentences. He also has language more associated with the upper class (such as an advanced vocabulary of multi-syllabic words) and addresses Willy formally as “William”.

While Willy strives toward the ideal that Ben represents, his language betrays his true nature as a common man. He uses words like “goddammit”, “y’know”, “goin'”, and “don’t” instead of “doesn’t”. Willy also skips around from idea to idea, as when he argues with Howard:

“I’m talking about your father! There were promises made across this desk! You mustn’t tell me you’ve got people to see – I put thirty-six years into this firm, Howard, and now I can’t pay my insurance! You can’t eat the orange and throw the peel away – a man is not a piece of fruit! Now pay attention. Your father – in 1928 I had a big year. I averaged a hundred and seventy dollars a week in commissions”.

In one paragraph, Willy skips from the problems of his reality to his idealistic philosophy of life to a tangential story from the past. He repeats this pattern countless times throughout the play. It belies the disparity between Willy’s facade of success and his reality of failure, as he is constantly jumping around in his speech to keep the facade and reality in balance. The pattern also contrasts heavily with the direct dialogue of Ben, who as an honestly successful man has nothing to prove or hide.

The language of the rest of the Lomans denotes their family roles. Linda constantly punctuates her speech with terms of endearment (“dear” and “darling”) and is often using imperative sentences to give instructions to the other family members.. This denotes her position in the family as a caregiver, manager, and peacemaker, traditional roles for a woman and mother. Biff and Happy also fall into their traditional roles as wholesome young boys with their use of words like “gee whiz”, “pal”, and “scout”. These examples are a continuation of Willy’s balancing falsehood and reality. By using language common to their roles in life, the other Lomans attempt to project a facade of American familial perfection while hiding the truth of their failure.

Crisis and Climax, Reversal and Resolution

While crisis and climax seem similar enough to be mistaken for each other, Medea‘s crisis and climax are two separate events which work together to create the highest tension of the play. The crisis is the death of Glauce and Creon. In one short event, both Jason’s fiance and his future father-in-law are dead. With them go his hopes of fame and fortune for himself and his sons. Already devastated by this, Jason is set up for the final blow of the climax. Medea, who has already destroyed Jason’s hopes for upward mobility, goes on to kill their children.

The reversal that occurs with these actions is an act of total revenge on Jason. First, he loses those who would help him move up in the world; next, he loses his entire reason for leaving Medea in the first place. He now has nothing and no one except Medea, which is the position in which Medea found herself at the beginning of the play. Their roles have been switched, and now Jason is at her mercy. Jason demands the bodies of his sons, much as Medea begged to keep them when she discovered that she had been exiled. Just as Jason denied her requests, Medea now rejects his. In an ironic parody of Jason’s thirst for upward mobility, Medea ascends to the skies in Apollo’s chariot, taking her sons’ bodies with her. Jason is left at the end with no family, having caused their deaths, feeling much as Medea did when she left her grieving father in Colchis.

Actions

As I was detailing the actions of Medea, I focused on the goal of describing events that could be put into active verbs which force another character into doing something, as we discussed in class. After reading Glenn’s post, I feel that I may have oversimplified some of the action of the play, but I also agree that our ways of detailing the action are equally important. Hopefully this list will be comparable to hers, and we will find some way to combine them into one thorough plot analysis.

My list is as follows:

1) Jason leaves Medea.

2) Creon banishes Medea.

3) Chorus endorses (accepts, agrees with?) Medea’s anger.

4) Medea begs Creon for one more day in Corinth.

5) Jason berates Medea for retaliating/not understanding his plan.

6) Medea rejects Jason’s offer of security.

7) Medea offers her skills in magic in return for refuge with Aegeus.

8) Chorus challenges Medea’s plan.

9) Medea sends her sons to Glauce with gifts.

10) Chorus condemns Medea’s actions.

11) Medea says goodbye to her sons.

12) Chorus condemns having children for the pain that they cause.

13) Creon and Glauce die.

Frankly, I’m not really sure if I did this correctly – that is, if I actually got down the plot instead of the story. Ideas?

Also, I’m not sure why there is a bespectacled smiley face instead of an eight…I can’t seem to fix it.