Pat

__Conflicting Perspective-Julius Caesar & Death of the President__ A perspective can be defined as a way of regarding a situation or set of facts, often involving a level of judgment. Perspective is subjective; therefore, conflict inevitably arises causing conflicting perspective. This idea is evident in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” and Gabriel Range’s film “Death of the President” which represented different perspective on each individual. Both text involve the assassination of an important political leader and explore the thought of the individuals involved in the event which shows conflicting perspective.

In “Julius Caesar” Shakespeare is able to exploit conflicting perspective through the use of images, symbols, techniques and languages. This is shown strongly in the speeches of the character Brutus and Anthony on their conflicted perspective as to what motivated Caesar politically before his assassination on whether he was ambitious or not. In Brutus’s speech he relies on reason and logical rationale to explain to the plebeians the reasons behind the assassination “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slave…and death for his ambition”. Initially he seems to struck a chord with the Roman people but the support were short live for his philosophic lakes emotional impacts. No explicit evidence is presented to prove that Caesar was ambitious apart from Brutus self-proclaim “believe me for my honour”. He also uses dry, uninspiring oratory techniques such as syllogism, antithesis, climax, repetition and comparison. Ironically, the use of prose in Brutus’s speech works against him, for it lacks the exaltation and regular rhythmic beat found in verse.

In parallel to this, the character Al Claybon and Frank Molini from Gabriel Range’s film “Death of the President” also shows certain perspective parallel to those of Brutus but not necessary the same. Unlike Brutus Al Claybon, who assassinated George Bush in the film, did it for his personal vengeance. The assassin who blames President Bush for the death of his son, killed himself after the event of assassination, leaving behind a note justifying his action “everything I stood for…has turned bad…no honour…dying for immoral cause” ,”love...country…god…son he gave me….do right thing by you and David…Bush killed our David and I cannot forgive him” shows an inevitable hatred for Bush. As for Frank Molini, who’s the leader of the protester against bush, shows us that his perspective are close to that of Brutus. He wants to remove Bush for the good of the American people as he sent more troops off to Iraq, causing soldiers to die. His quote “…Bush candidate for death penalty…responsible for 100000 death…if tried war crime tribunal…will be found guilty” show us his point of why Bush should go; ironically he did not killed Bush himself.

To juxtapose these perspectives several characters emerge and challenge them. This can be seen in Antony’s speech opposing the perspective of Brutus. Unlike Brutus Mark Antony’s funeral speech is a masterwork of persuasion. Had he stated what his intentions were after the assassination of Caesar, he would have been ambushed and killed which were “…gentle with these __Butchers!__...let slip the dogs of war…foul deed smell above the earth”. Rather he carefully adopted a cautious sideway approach; adapted his approach by appearing to go along with the conspirators and ironically using Brutus’s words to make it appear he accepts their justifications for the brutal slaying of Caesar. In order to manipulate the plebeians to his way of thinking he continues to use the words of the conspirators against themselves as well as appeal to them emotionally and concreted Caesar’s generosity and good governance. It is evident in his quotes “...He hath brought many captives home to Rome, Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill…Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?” and” …When the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept…” Yet, Antony admits, Brutus says Caesar was ambitious “and Brutus is an honourable man”. It is the repetition of this ironic mantra that gradually becomes hollow and sways the audience against the conspirators. Continuing to appeal to their emotions, Antony plays his highest card, his produces two tangible pieces of evidence to clinch is argument; Caesar’s will and his brutally massacred body. His speech was well articulated and in poetry which appears more appealing to the crowded than Brutus’s speech allow him win their hearts and minds and subtly appeals to their personal self – interest.

Another example of the juxtaposition are the character Cheney and McGuire who argue that Bush shouldn’t be assassinated. This is shown thorough Cheney’s speech at Bush’s funeral and McGuire quotes. At the funeral Cheney said that “…Bush is optimism…knew god’s purposes to be right and true…hope to oppressed, shamed oppressors…” not only that he also describe it as “heinous act”. As for McGuire he fails to protect the president and “will catch that bastard who did it”. He admires Bush describe him as “a person with the views”. At the end when they “caught” the alleged assassin Zikri, even though he was innocent but mistakenly join the al-Qaeda, Cheney and McGuire ignore the evidence of cross interviews, CCTV and documents, they said “someone need to be lock up…not our problem…flirting with terrorism” shows that they want inevitable justice for the crimes that happens, brushing away other perspective.

In the end we can also see that the successors of the assassinated political leader tends to have an advantage as well as benefit e.g. Antony raising in power, pricking names of people who conspire against Caesar and Cheney uses the possible Zikri al-Qaeda connection to push out his own legislation “PATRIOT III”, increasing power of FBI and the police detaining suspects. To conclude, those who see the chances will use it to their own advantages in order to beat the opposing perspective. Conflicting perspective will always persist everywhere as each individual will always have different opinions.

The Great Gatsby
...... ...... ......

Elizabeth Browning Poems
..... ..... .....

Love Relationship (The Great Gatsby and EBB poems)
Elizabeth Browning poetry and The Great Gatsby both portray love relationship and it's nature. Both text explore the concept of love through time, integrating different types of love and values that upholds it which is influence by the context of it's time of composing. The two text has the concept of idealise love in which the values change over time, the two text represent the idea of love relationship differently where one is a projection and the other base on the author's own experience.

Elizabeth browning poems are written in the context of the Victorian era, where love is pure, idealized and spiritual which are based on her own personal relationship. In contrast The Great Gatsby is written in context of post WWI which also present love as ideal but it's built on a projection, not a real person and is influence by the fail, corrupted, ideals of American Dream.

Links:
Note: Please give me a day so I can organize the page and type my essay in word documents
 * Patrick, plan in terms of paragraphs and topic sentences for those paragraphs. Headings like the ones above won't help you compose your draft - well, not in a way that will lead to clarity of ideas and expression.**


 * ~Not Patrick, its Patcharawat :p ~Brendan Sorry Pat. Patrick cleared this up for me today. Mr W**


 * Pat, I've copied your 2 paragraphs below. Expression is a problem. I've tried to rewrite just the expression and leave your content and style as they are. That seems okay for the 1st paragraph. But not the 2nd.**

Elizabeth Barrett Browning' "Sonnets from the Portuguese" (1846) and F Scott Fitzgerald's novel __The Great Gatsby__ (1924) both portray love relationships and their nature. Both texts explore the concept of love through time. The different types of love and the values that uphold it are influenced by the context of each composer and his times. The two texts explore the concept of idealised love and relationships.Browning's sonnets are based on the composer's own experience while for the character of Gatsby, the love relationship is based on a projection.

Browning's poems are written in the context of the Victorian era, where __love is pure, idealized and spiritual__ **Not right here. you have 2 contexts to briefly explain: her personal one AND the wider Victorian one. Refer to your notes and handouts.** which are based on her own personal relationship. In contrast The Great Gatsby is written in context of post WWI which also present love as ideal but it's built on a __projection, not a real person__ **this isn't part of context. It's part of your text discussion when you get to it**and is influence by the fail, corrupted, ideals of American Dream.