Polonius has sometimes been presented Essay

There has been much debate amongst critics and directors alike on the depth of Polonius’s character, and his purpose in the play. There are those, such as critic Myron Taylor, who view him as a more sinister persona, arguing ‘his ineffectuality does not excuse his moral deviousness. Appearance has become his reality’, thus implying he is used for menacing dramatic effect. However others take a more sympathetic view, for example Elkin Calhoun Wilson; ‘that dotage repeatedly amuses us in his fondness for lecturing and giving advice, however sound, to his meandering young;’, therefore interpreting him as a more bumbling and comical element to an otherwise serious play. Despite understanding both these views I still, like Hamlet, see Polonius as a ‘rash, intruding fool’ [Act. 3Scene. 4 line33]and believe anything done that may appear enigmatic or ominous can only have occurred unintentionally (in the script) or through exaggeration in directing. Similarly to Wilson, I can see how Polonius would add light-hearted, comic relief to the play, especially when paired with quick-witted Hamlet, highlighting the cracks in Polonius’s delusional ‘wise’ role he has adopted. Polonius has traditionally been played as a sinister character, with exaggerations on his spying and sneaking around castles, as is portrayed in Franco Zeffirelli’s version, though many productions in the 20th Century have instead portrayed him as older and more bumbling to bring a comic element to the play. There are two sides of Polonius shown in Act 1 Scene 3 and Act 2 Scene 1. These focus on his relationships with Ophelia and Laertes, and to me portray him as foolish again, though not unintelligent. He appears authoritative ‘Look to’t I charge you; come your ways’ [Scene3 line. 135 to Ophelia] and gives further instructions to Laertes ‘Aboard, aboard.. neither a borrower nor a lender be’ [lines55+75]. This particular line enforces the idea he is comical/foolish; advising Laertes to leave else he’ll miss his crossing, yet proceeding to bombard him with a lengthy advisory speech that states what is obvious. It does seem that he is rambling here as well, as of course Laertes is returning to university, not just starting, making the well-meant advice effectively knowledge that Laertes already has. Both his offspring create an impression of having to be patient with him, replying in just short sentences as if to make up for time lost ‘Most humbly do I take leave my lord’ [Laertes line 81]. The audience’s knowledge that he isn’t as respected as he thinks himself to be can be humorous, developing an almost ‘bumbling’ man who is held in higher esteem by himself than even his long-suffering, and in the case of Ophelia, oppressed, children. With Ophelia, there is a significant difference their relationship than that with Laertes; Polonius seems highly insensitive to her feelings, and Ophelia’s replies become more restrained and subservient. When speaking to Ophelia, for example, Polonius advises her on her relationship with Hamlet ‘Do not believe his vows, for they are brokers’ [Act 1 sc. 3 line 127]; in Kenneth Branagh’s production of the play, Ophelia has already slept with Hamlet, and Branagh makes use of flashbacks in Ophelia’s mind of their sexual relations as she listens absent-mindedly to her father. This helps back up an image of Polonius as rather ignorant, especially as Ophelia’s reply is so submissive, building an impression of an advisor of little use to anybody, which in turn strengthens his role as a comic. However, this display of likeability could be argued to be compromised in Act 2 Scene 1 as Polonius plots to send spies after Laertes ‘put on him What forgeries you please,’ [Act 2 sc. 1 lines19+20], potentially revealing a darker side to him, yet for me this is ruined later on in dialogue ‘And then, sir, does’a this-he does-what was I about to say? ‘ suggesting he puts on an act whilst playing up his deviousness, as the inconsistency in language, dashes and faltering punctuation portray an inconsistent mind that runs away too easily and is not to be taken seriously; quite like the character itself: not intended to be a serious one. With relevance to Claudius, when both in a scene, Polonius can either be argued to be more devious or even more of a fool. The former view could have been picked up on because of the spying and meddling that occurs between the two of them, such as in Act 3 Sc. 1 ‘Her father and myself, lawful espials, Will so bestow ourselves†¦ ‘ [ lines 32+33] and to some may show a more sinister shade to his persona. In Branagh’s full-length version, Polonius is shown to be slyer, with the including of his (spying) scene with Reynaldo; a scene some directors cut out to enhance their own, more positive view of the character, due to his scheming. Polonius is in a superior position in the court, which has been argued to be deliberate to use his status power to a menacingly-inclined advantage, but is this because of his wisdom (as critic Harry Levin believes â€Å"[Polonius is] quotable because of the wisdom of his comments†), or because Claudius just needs a friend? There is a theory which might explain his position, interpreting him as someone who once had a great mind, but is now losing control of it. This is Polonius in a more tragic light, though Claudius evidently still relies on him and trusts him, as he follows Polonius’s advice regarding spying, but also agreeing to a meeting between Hamlet and the Queen before Hamlet is sent to England. The latter theory is the viewpoint that perhaps Claudius and Gertrude see him as a fool. When Polonius in Act 2 Sc. 2 gets carried away in his own wordiness â€Å"Why day is day, night night†¦ † [line 88] unintentionally, he is opposing himself to the idea of his speech â€Å"brevity is the soul of wit† [line 90], and Gertrude even remarks â€Å"More matter with less art. † [line 95], in other words, bluntly pointing out that Polonius’s act as a wise advisor is conjured by himself; that he is not the mind he thinks himself to be. Act 3 Scene 1 reconfirms my original theory, as Polonius guesses-incorrectly and slightly hypocritically-that the cause of Hamlet’s madness is down to Ophelia’s rejection, again giving Hamlet, and the audience, the upper hand ‘yet do I believe The origin and commencement of his grief/ Sprung from neglected love’. Even when it is confirmed that hamlet’s madness has nothing to do with Ophelia, Polonius sticks to his theory despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Far from appearing sinister then, the two (Claudius and Polonius) together appear foolish, like puppets with Hamlet as their master, manipulating and playing their minds. This is demonstrated earlier in the play, as Polonius tells Ophelia not to believe his vows â€Å"for they are brokers† [Act 1 sc. 3 line 127], yet here, he himself is taken in by Hamlet’s performance. It is also worth noting that Polonius had previously told Ophelia ‘Affection? Pooh, you speak like a green girl’ [Act 1 Sc. 3, lines 127, + 101], showing he is proving to be stubborn on a matter he previously disagreed with-and seemed so ready to persuade Ophelia likewise of- himself. Polonius is often contrasted with Hamlet. It could be argued his place in the play is to emphasise Hamlet’s quick-wittedness and intelligent nature. He seems not to understand the Prince is teasing him conversationally; ‘I did enact Julius Caesar, I was killed I’ th’ Capitol; Brutus killed me’ [Polonius Act 3 Sc. 2lines 105+106] ‘It was a brute part of him to kill so capitol a calf there’ [Hamlet lines 107+8]. Scenes like this also help to contrast Hamlet’s sharp dialogue with Polonius’s slow, lengthy style of speech, particularly when he is with the King or Queen and uses it to impress: as Elkin Calhoun Wilson has noticed ‘†¦ and over-elaborating it [his ‘wisdom’] in speech with the King and Queen’. Hamlet further makes Polonius the butt of his jokes in Act 3 Scene 2 ‘By th’ mass and ’tis, like a camel indeed’ [Polonius line 375] ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’ [Hamlet line 376] and has more fun at the old diplomat’s expense. It also quite blatantly makes a joke out of Polonius, the laughs in the audience this time actually being against him, as he remains too involved in the sound of his own voice to properly register what Hamlet is saying, establishing him unarguably as a comic character. Hamlet is a character with an excellent command over language in the play though, and is naturally clever without striving to be, whereas Polonius speaks in dragging, slow bouts and wants to be considered wise. There is clearly little respect towards Polonius from Hamlet (â€Å"you are a fishmonger† [Act.2 Sc. 2 line 174], and, as he is the protagonist of the play, this sways the audience’s opinion towards him. He is almost too cruel towards him at some points though, e. g. â€Å"old men have grey beards†¦ they have a plentiful lack of wit† [Act. 2 Sc. 2 lines 197-201], clearly describing Polonius, and so perhaps enforcing the idea of him as a tragic character. Right until the end, Hamlet still treats Polonius as a second-class person; showing no remorse at his death and branding him a ‘rash, intruding fool’ [Act 3 Scene 4 line 33] which of course he was. The words ‘intruding’ convey a completely different meaning to ‘cleverly inquisitive’ and ‘rash’ doesn’t invite the praise ‘spontaneous’ would. He was then labelled a fool during his time in the play, and labelled a fool again upon his exit. It is ironic Polonius’s death should be so unceremonious [Act 3 Scene 4, stage directions ‘Exit Hamlet dragging in Polonius’ line 219] given that his persona in the play was one of elaboration and false grandeur. This is almost like a last, bittersweet laugh against him, exactly the opposite of how he would have liked to have exited, the word ‘dragged’ being of particular importance, as when performed on stage this would have been so undignified as to have crossed slightly into black humour territory, depending on the director (â€Å"I’ll lug the guts into the neighbour room†, Hamlet, Act. 3 Scene. 4, line 213)It is also exposing that Polonius should have been killed from behind the arras, and in a foolish way too. It would have been wiser to remain hidden, and so by shouting, symbolically, perhaps Polonius was revealing the shallowness there was to his ‘sinister’ persona. Hamlet’s reaction is one of brevity and disrespect ‘I took thee for thy better’ [line 134]. However, his death does act as a catalyst for the race towards the ending of the play; Hamlet is sent to England to meet his death, though Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are killed instead. This proceeds to him finally taking revenge on Claudius, and results in the murders of Gertrude, Hamlet, Laertes and Claudius. Whether this increases his worth or not in the play is open to interpretation. Elkin Calhoun Wilson decides ‘Polonius has a minor tragic dimension as well as a major comic’ boasting ‘[my] eyes catch a more embracive view of him than Hamlet’s possibly can’ and with this I can, to an extent, agree. It is tragic he should be cast off in such a way, and in him there was not just the ‘doddering old fool’, but also, as Elkin writes, a ‘comic appendage’. Overall then, looking at various views and studying the text thoroughly, I can stick by my judgement of Polonius as a foolish, though comic, character. Although considered unimportant by those in the play, I believe him to bring a welcome relief from the drama and tragedy entangled in the plot which would otherwise make for a very depressing production. Of course, it is down to personal interpretation how a director would present the character, but to me the lengthy and self-important dialogue is unavoidable, and the undignified death inevitable, making Polonius -arguably- doomed to lack credible menace void of irony and humour, and therefore set firmly as a foolish ‘prating’ character. 1999 words Sophie Mayall. Bibliography: Websites used:http://www. metroactive. com/papers/metro/02. 20. 97/branagh-9708. html http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Polonius www. jstor. org- Studies in English Literature 1500-1900: Vol. 8, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean England www. jstor. org- Shakespeare Quarterly: Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1958), pp. 83-85 Films: Kenneth Branagh’s film version Hamlet: 1996 Franco Zeffirelli’s film version Hamlet: 1990 Copies of the text: Cambridge School Shakespeare First Edition, published 1994 Heinemann Advanced Shakespeare, published 2000 Journals: Shakespeare Quarterly: Vol. 9 (winter 2005), Vol. 8 No. 2 (spring 1968).

Of Mice and Men Main Question Essay

The question we are focussing on throughout the whole essay, which is the main theme, is whether Curley’s wife is a victim in the story or a tramp. The two different sides of Curley’s wife are hard to determine in Steinbeck’s ‘Mice and Men’, as she tends to swap roles from time to time. At points in the story we have reason to believe that that she is a victim, from the way she feels about Curley and her unattained future, which I will explore further on in the essay. I will also put across my points on how she can be a corrupting tramp by exploring her physical appearance, body language and other characters opinions of her. From Steinbeck’s letter we can see that she couldn’t really trust anyone from a young age because every time she trusted in anyone she got hurt. This shows her innocent side. There are not many points in Steinbeck’s letter that show that she is a corrupting tramp as he tends to mainly focus on her innocent side and he goes through all the times she got hurt and why she got hurt. I will now go on to explain my points in further detail. In this section I will explain how Curley’s wife could be an innocent victim in her life and in the eyes of others. She is the victim of the ‘American Dream’, her desire to go to Hollywood and be an actress, which was a dream that she could not fulfil because of her mother denying her to leave at such a young age. On page 125 she proves that she really could have been an actress by the text stated ‘She made a small grand gesture with her arm and hand to show that she could act. The fingers trailed after her leading wrist, and her little finger stuck out grandly from the rest’. This small quote shows how talented she could have been and it makes you feel heartbroken that she couldn’t fulfil her dream. From then on she has been crestfallen and cannot trust anyone, this shows her innocent side. She was told by a man that he could put her in the movies; she was thrilled as she wanted to be a famous actress and be sexy like Jean Harlow and Marilyn Monroe but when her mother said she couldn’t go she opted for an easier option to get out of where she was by marrying Curley. She says in the text on page 125 ‘I don’t like curley, he aint a nice fella’ which proves that she was forced to get married to him as it was the last option. Because Curley was the easiest and possibly the last option, he didn’t actually love her and just wanted to use her. She knew this and even though he treated her badly, she couldn’t leave him as she did love him. Even if she didn’t she had nowhere else to go so she was basically trapped in her own home. Her life with Curley is miserable which makes her even more upset about not being able to fulfil her dream and have freedom. In the story she confesses to Lennie the one thing that she’s never confessed to anyone, that she doesn’t actually like Curley and that she can’t escape for fear of what might happen. You can see from this that she just needs someone to talk to as she is so lonely and can’t really confide or talk to Curley about anything. The people on the ranch give her the same amount of respect that Curley does. When they call her or see her around the ranch they don’t associate her with her own name, to them she’s just Curley’s wife and they call her ‘Jailbait’ and ‘Good looking’. You can tell she gets frustrated by having no one to talk to when she gets angry on page 123 and says ‘What’s the matter with me? Aint I got a right to talk to nobody? Whatta they think I am anyways?’ In the story we don’t even find out what her name is which shows how much attention she gets for her looks instead of her personality which is where she wants most attention. From this we can see that she just wants someone to talk to. On the other hand there are main features we can see in the text that describe her to seem like a corrupting tramp. Looking at the way Steinbeck describes her physical appearance we can see how at first impressions she would come across as sluttish. For a start, he describes her outfit. On page 53 when she first appears the first impression would definitely come across as tramp- like as he says ‘She had full rouged lips and wide spaced eyes, heavily made up. Her fingernails were red. She wore a cotton dress and red mules. On the insteps of which were little bouquets of red ostrich feathers’. The dress and feather shoes give us a glance of how she wants to accentuate her body and her legs and its almost like she’s trying to prove that she could be a famous model and have pictures taken of her if she’d have had the chance to. The colour of the dress and shoes are red which propose danger as we usually approach red as a threatening colour. So from the start we can she that she is going to be trouble for George and especially Lennie due to previous circumstances with him and a girl. Her hair is described as ringlets like ‘sausages’ which is good use of foreshadowing as Lennie is described as an animal, and food is used as bait for animals therefore she literally is ‘Jailbait’. She wears lots of makeup to accentuate her facial features; this is another reason why she could be a corrupting tramp. The first time she walks into the ranch she leans against the door and leans forward to show off her body to Lennie and George, on page 53 Steinbeck states ‘She put her hands behind her back and leaned against the door frame so that her body was thrown forward’. With her accentuated make up and clothing she fails to receive a notice for her feelings and for her emotions and they only concentrate on the way she looks which tells George from the start that she is going to be trouble as she throws herself forward too much for attention. In the way she speaks you can hear the sexiness and huskiness of her voice, as described on page 53 when Steinbeck says ‘Her voice had a nasal, brittle quality’ which shows us that she wants to entice people or entrance them. To conclude I think it is important to include the death scene where Steinbeck describes her as being free and innocent after her death. He describes her in a child like form and finally being beautiful and achieving everything she needed to achieve because she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. This really finalises my decision for her being innocent because it shows that she really wasn’t ever, or didn’t ever mean to be, a corrupting tramp. Her excuse for wearing slutty and provocative clothes could be because she wanted love and affection which she couldn’t get from her own, broken relationship with Curley. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it wasn’t her fault. My conclusion is that I think she is innocent because of previous points that I have made and stated.

Burger King and Its Advertising Campaigns Essay

Burger King is a reliable burger company which has had its ups and downs. In 1974, it came out with a slogan of â€Å"Have it your way† and at this time it also had a 4 % market share. Burger King’s idea was to have the customer have their burger done their way rather than a standard burger. In the early 80’s Burger King was trying to keep sales growing so they had to keep changing their advertising. In 1982 â€Å"Battle of the burgers† and â€Å"Aren’t you hungry for a Burger king now? † were the slogans used. In 1983 â€Å"Broiling vs. frying† and 1985 â€Å"The big switch†. All these ads throughout the years helped increase market shares from 7. 6% to 8. 3% from 1983 to 1985. â€Å"Search for herb† was a slogan used by BK about a person that has never tasted a whopper burger, this campaign was supposed to increase market share by 10% but in reality only increased it by 1% it was a disaster. In 1986-1987 â€Å"this is a burger king town† and â€Å"best food for fast times† brought a lot of attention to the company. In 1988 â€Å"We do it like you do it† was used often but a year later they came out with two new slogans which confused the customer. In 1989 â€Å"Sometimes you gotta break the rules† and â€Å"BK tee vee† with MTV and Dan Cortese with â€Å"I love this place†. This was another huge setback for BK because people on the go and parents found this ad loud and irritating. BK at this time has failed to establish a solid image that would differentiate it from its competitors. Ads if anything only confused consumers as to what advantages BK offered. In 1993 it had a market share of 6. 1% were McDonalds had 15. 6% and BK’s sales were growing slower than its rivals. Failed advertising campaigns weren’t the only problem’s, they also had internal problems. Management lacked focus and direction and has struggled with marketing mix decisions. Franchises became confused and angered, service was slow and food preparation wasn’t consistent. Burger King lost its core product- flame broiled burgers, made the way the customer wanted them. Another thing that hurt them was the fact they didn’t lower prices to keep competing with their competitors this led to a below average sales growth. Many in store promotion also failed. In 1993 a new CEO was introduced, this allowed for huge turnaround and in fact it did. He helped please the franchises and responded to their problems and listened to their recommendations. Then later he lowered prices and hired a new advertising agency. 1. In reading this case analysis I figured Burger King to advertise the Whopper, but throughout the past years they didn’t do this. I figure the whopper or the flame broiled ads would have been more productive and probably would have resulted in greater sales margin. I also feel that the ads should have distinguished themselves from what other ads by letting the people know that burger king wasn’t just another standardized burger. Throughout the years, BK tried to establish the market by becoming someone they weren’t. I feel the ads used by BK should have been simple and to the point. This would have caused less confusion and more honesty with the customer, this is because you don’t want to advertise a pizza or a taco if your selling burgers. Other objectives BK wanted was to target teens with the MTV approach. This also failed because people found it loud and annoying. Then they tried a sit in type of restaurant, which also failed because people want a fast food low price meal not a high priced, sit down meal. Advertising is any paid form of non personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods or services by an identified sponsor. Advertising is a good way to inform and persuade the customer. Advertising objectives are based on past decisions about the target market, positioning and target mix. There are five steps to making a major advertising decision these steps are as follows: Objective setting, Budget decisions, Message decision or media decision, and campaign evaluation. Along with these steps BK should also remember to inform, persuade, and to remind. These three are a must that a company should aim at, for example: in informing BK used the ad â€Å"Broiling vs. frying† in 1983 letting the consumer know that their burgers were broiled and not fried. In persuading, I think BK over did it and that is why I feel that they didn’t retain market share. They tried to be someone they weren’t with slogans like â€Å"search for herb† in 85 and many others like â€Å"BK Tee Vee† trying to persuade the younger generation and â€Å"Sometimes you gotta break the rules†. These slogans and more tried to persuade the consumer. In reminding their customers BK has done a good job. They’ve at least expanded nationally and internationally and always have commercials everywhere with a juicy whopper on the screen, reminding the viewer that BK is the only place a whopper is made. 2. BK’s past advertising and corporate strategy failed because BK did the two biggest mistakes they could have done. First they didn’t listen to the customer and second they didn’t advertise their main product a maintain a target market. In not accomplishing any of these two strategies in the past it allowed their rivals to get a lead on them. In 1993 McDonalds, for example, had a market share of 15. 6 percent compared to BK’s 6. 1 percent. This is because they established their market and didn’t try to invent new strategies. Burger King started to lose market shares when it first came out with the search for herb, and then it declined again when it tried to target the teenage generation rather than staying loyal to the general customer. It tried targeting the younger generation through MTV. This became insulting and irritating to the old customers and to the quiet more relaxed people and even all the young children who prefer clowns than some man screaming on TV . BK did not listen to its customer, they tried to establish a restaurant type of business, rather than their fast food burgers. Fast food patrons really wanted low prices and quick but high quality food, not a higher priced, sit down meal. The corporate strategy and the past advertising wasn’t the only problem and wasn’t the only one at fault for BK’s failure. They also had internal problems. Management has had troubles with the market mix decisions. Service was slow and food preparation was inconsistent and many stores needed remodeling. BK didn’t focus on its burger ,instead they were trying to experiment with pizza’s and ice cream. This caused confusion ,and confusion brings problems. To add to the problems BK was more expensive than McDonalds or Wendy’s combos, which was also hurt sales for Burger King. 3. For the new advertising campaign I would personally target the young and the old generation. I would also be very health conscious and try to establish myself as an environment safe corporation. Burger King is huge, they have the ability to do what they please, but they better make sure the customer are happy. I would make new slogans, and put new ideas for kids and grown ups to enjoy. I remember when I was growing up I used to love going to Burger King for a burger and getting a little toy. Now, you get a toy but the prices are so high you really end up paying for it anyway. I wouldn’t leave out the teenage to mid- twenty’s crowd, but I feel they are less influence by ads and specials, they will buy what is probably better and cheaper. Besides if you target them when they are small growing up then when they already grow they look they like you anyway. That is why you have to target the young and make sure you are good to them. New slogans are hard to come by in specially into this society where you better watch what you say or you will get suit. I do not really believe in slogans, I personally rather buy quality than to hear how good it could be. For me seeing is believing and I do not believe everything I hear. 4. I recommend a couple of things for Burger King to do. One has already been accomplish, this was I would first change the CEO. In this case Jim Adamson stepped in July 1991, since then Burger King has made a turn around. He listened and responded to franchise problems and recommendations. He locked into a strategy of concentrating on BK’s core products flame broiled, bigger burgers. He launched a new pricing structure which will compete with that of McDonald’s. Burger King also needed to get some effective advertising, and I believe Mr. Adamson also accomplished this, seeing BK has grown since 1991. He went back to the basics which I think was the most important part of a Company’s rebuilding, because this how you got to where you are and if all else fails, it’s like starting again with experience. BK became known as â€Å"The voice of the people† opposed to McDonald’s been known as the voice of the Corporation. I also feel BK advertising has improved. Now you see burgers on TV compare to Dan Cortese a couple of years ago. You also see people having a good time and eating a whopper. I feel Burger King is a company with many obstacles but it is also a company that if is stuck to its basic game plan, it could regain a great deal of the market share. If I was to give a recommendation it would probably be for BK to stay been loyal to your customers and to try to keep the market share.