An example of this is his lack of any legitimate reasons for killing King Duncan and obtaining the throne except for his own ambition and greed to become king. The prophecies that Macbeth receives from the witches seem so true that he relies on the words of these predictions alone, instead of taking action himself to secure the works of the prophecies. Macbeth let his ambition blind him; as did the ruler in “Ozymandias”. Another consequence of ambition is loneliness. Ozymandias and Macbeth had so much ambition that they put themselves above all of their peers and former supporters.
However, I was impressed overall with the directing of Smiths. He got the cast to really understand the underpinnings of Miller's great tirade against those who stifle free thought, and drew the key scenes to a good emotional climax. The lighting was adequate; the set design was simple but effective; the staging didn't add much to the play, but it didn't detract either. My main gripe about the production design centers on their programs (absolutely, terribly unprofessional) and the pixilated images used in place of backdrops (projected against a screen) In my opinion that was a great idea, but it was very poorly executed. Ultimately, a play succeeds because of the strength of its story not its stage dressing.
They are corrupt because they have social status but then they abused this power. Furthermore, the villains in both The Duchess of Malfi and Measure for Measure have the characteristics of Machiavellian villains. Per contra, Angelo is not like the villains in The Duchess of Malfi because he does not have an assistant to help him and does not have a personal vendetta against another in the play. He just wants to eliminate crime but, eventually, contradicts his own laws he is enforcing by asking Isabella to give her body to him sexually to save her brother: ‘You must lay down the treasures of your body To this supposed, or else to let him suffer: What would you do?’ (Act 2 Scene iv) This quotation tells us that; females of that day and age would have done exactly what they were told to do, on command if told to. We can see this by looking at the language of this quotation.
Richard shows a dangerous capacity for poor judgment and fascination with luxury, which deviate from the expectations of royalty. The servile followers that Richard is surrounded by also play an integral role in his incompetence. Moreover, there is mirrored imagery when Shakespeare discusses Bolingbroke’s determination to depose Richard with the Earl of Essex’s rebellion to overthrow Queen Elizabeth. However, the Earl of Essex’s rebellion was unsuccessful, as his supporters had deserted him before arriving at London whereas Bolingbroke’s uprising was successful due to the support of the nobles. Bolingbroke strives to preserve his family honour and retrieve his rightful land, thus his ambitions prove him to be a competent co-ordinator.
For all its emphasis on power, much of the play is actually concerned with powerlessness. In what ways is powerlessness important in Richard III? In King Richard III, Shakespeare depicts Yorkist society as an utterly selfish, power-hungry world in which social standing is of the utmost importance. Antagonist and evil “villain” Richard exemplifies this egotism and avarice through his constant, ruthless manipulation and deceit of others. However, Shakespeare makes it clear that in fact others’ narrow-mindedness is key to Richard’s success.
The connections in the mentioned themes demonstrates how shared ideas impact differently on individuals in different contexts. Shakespeare’s work deals with the identity of Kingship and monarchical authority and in ‘Richard II’ we see the character Richard struggle with self identity as his throne is threatened to be taken from him. As Bolingbroke takes the crown Richard believes that he is a thief of more than just his kingship, but takes everything of him, as without his role, he has no persona and no existence. We see how much Richard values the relationship between his identity and title and names as he states , while disorientated after losing his kingship ,“Nor no man’s lord! I have no name, no title.
The Prince has elicited debate amongst generations of readers for its seemingly ruthless approach to statecraft and its abandonment of conventional morality. What Machiavelli recommends may seem, in a different political context to the stability of interstate relations today, to be shocking or immoral. However, such an interpretation fails to consider that The Prince is very much made by and for the real world. Machiavelli’s prescriptions are tailored to circumstances where society is already immoral by human nature and is blighted by disorder. Thus this essay will posit that Machiavelli is not motivated by immorality but rather pragmatism, in his advocacy of the means necessary to achieving an ‘end’ of stability and security for the collective good of the people.
A Doll's House, by Henrik Ibsen, cannot be considered a tragedy because although it meets some of the requirements of Aristotle's definition, it does not fit the complete profile of this literary style. To begin with, A Doll's House is quite different from well-known tragedies, especially in terms of the characterization of the protagonist. In tragedies such as Julius Cesar and Macbeth, the main characters are what we call tragic heroes. Tragic hero is defined as a privileged character of high repute who by a tragic flaw and fate suffers a fall from glory. For example, in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Macbeth was a king whose flaw was his vengeful nature, which led him to lose everything he had, including his life.
One of the main themes in Macbeth is person versus society, which points out that nothing is as it appears to be. Shakespeare uses this theme, however, to point out the imperfections in society. Through Macbeth he is able to show how appearances can be deceiving; and how nothing good comes out of putting on an act for others,
Despite all this negativity, it would be a great over-simplification to assume that the overall play ‘presents us with a bleak and cruel world and offers no comfort at the end’, though this is an easy assumption to make given the obvious bleakness that infects the play throughout. Shakespeare does not dance around with back stories for the characters; rather he launches straight into Lear’s grand mistake in the first scene, and leaves the characters actions to imprint on the audience’s mind, introducing them. Lear’s flaws become evident immediately, even if the consequences of such flaws are not fully unveiled until later. Lear’s pride can be dismantled to have many layers; too proud to accept the truth in Cordelia’s words, seeking only mindless, false flattery; too proud to listen to Kent’s wise warnings, hearing only ignorant interruptions. ‘In thy best consideration check this hideous rashness.’ Lear does not only ignore the good advice his good friend Kent is giving him, he also