Throughout “A Man For All Seasons” Robert Bolt deliberately constructs the play to show two kinds of men in the world, men with integrity and those without. Bolt achieves this by contrasting Thomas More’s beliefs and integrity with other characters within the play, using events and scenarios to show characters beliefs and values intern shining a light on people's integrity, and by using Thomas More as a devices that pushes people to show their true colours.
Bolt shows two kinds of men, those with and those out integrity in “A Man For All Seasons” by contrasting Thomas More’ beliefs and integrity with other characters within the play. Bolt contrasts More with several of the characters throughout the play, the most significant ones being the
…show more content…
Matthew More’s steward is questioned by Cromwell holding a coin in Matthew vision for him to see. Without a second thought he tossed his integrity to the curb selling More.”All right, so he’s down on his luck! I’m sorry. I don’t mind saying that: I’m sorry! Bad luck! If I’d any good luck to spare he could have some. I wish we could all have good luck, all the time! I wish we had wings! I wish rainwater was beer! But it isn’t! . . . And what with not having wings but walking-on two flat feet; and good luck and bad luck being just exactly even stevens; and rain being water—don’t you complicate the job by putting things in me for me to miss! (Act Two)”. This quote is after More let Matthew go, and he tells him that he will be missed but Matthew is skeptical of More seeing no reason for More to miss him. He resents felling has to worry about personal relations and responsibilities, particularly those regarding his boss.Up to this point in the play Matthew has spent the entire play acting for his own financial gain, accepting bribes for information on More and others.Having made the common man the universal man representing all of humanity bolt, lets us the reader have are own place in the play allowing us to glean our own eyes into their world, contrasting the reader …show more content…
The king is only seen this one time in the play but it tells a great deal about him and the people that follow him. He enters the scene with this grand entrance cheerful and welcoming surrounded by nobles doing his bidding. This part has a Jekyll and Hide feeling about because the king goes too see Thomas More to talk, finding out that he made his trip to get More’s word that he will approve of his divorce. Once he realizes that more will not approve, and like a switch he turn off his nice and honest act and and shows his hostile, dishonest and aggressive personality, demanding More to conform, storming off. The nobles reaction to the king tells a lot about them as well , they followed him like a lost child, with no will of their own, they're willing to throw everything they are to get a head by pleasing the king even if it goes against their beliefs and
ideas. A reader of A Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt, may not be accustomed
Hence, upon analyzing the story, one can conclude the certain themes that parallel through the pages. Firstly, a theme of unity and trust is present at the end of the play. This is supported by the image of the cathedral, which is a place of unity. Most importantly, the notion of equality among people is the main theme within this story. The narrator starts as a biased, idiot, who dislikes all people that are not like himself. He even at times is rude to his wife. Ironically, it takes a blind man to change the man that can literally see, to rule out the prejudices and to teach him that all men are created equal.
In individual searches to find themselves, Frank and April Wheeler take on the roles of the people they want to be, but their acting grows out of control when they lose sense of who they are behind the curtains. Their separate quests for identity converge in their wish for a thriving marriage. Initially, they both play roles in their marriage to please the other, so that when their true identities emerge, their marriage crumbles, lacking communication and sentimentality. Modelled after golden people or manly figures, the roles Frank and April take on create friction with who they actually are. Ultimately, to “do something absolutely honest” and “true,” it must be “a thing … done alone” (Yates 327). One need only look inside his or her self to discover his or her genuine identity.
When pondering about what an individual thinks of you, people have varying views. Some people are not concerned; to others it is the most critical matter on their mind. The feeling of being judged is a very potent emotion. Likewise, conformity is one of the largest controversies in today’s society; the behavior of someone in accordance with socially accepted conventions or standards. So if someone personally made his or her expectations on what you should be like evident, would you change? In Matthew Quick’s The Silver Linings Playbook, he illustrates that judgment and expectations conform a person into someone they are not due to their personal identity. This can be seen through a character’s loyalty to another, dominance and the vulnerability it includes, and a character’s love and devotion. Conformity and the reasons for its appearance will be analyzed through samples from Matthew Quick’s bestselling novel.
Oscar Wilde’s “The Importance of Being Earnest” epitomizes the idiosyncrasy of the Victorian society through satire and wit. Throughout the play Wilde criticizes the common perception of the mid seventeenth through early eighteenth century culture, “Prudish, hypocritical, stuffy and narrow minded”. With his quintessential characters and intricate situations Wilde configures the perfect depiction of the carless irrationality of social life, the frivolity of the wealthy, the importance of money, and the lack of reverence for marriage often manifested by those in this era. Wilde also jabs at the Victorian convention to uphold the appearance of decency in order to hide the cruel, indignant and manipulative attitudes of the time. Through setting, characters, comedy, and a great deal of drama Oscar Wilde portrays his views on the elitist of his time.
...ment of himself as a man, as a provider of his family and most important of what he wants to be, which draws him to a completely discomfort of who he is and lost his mind in a parallel world where he is not afraid of the men in the portrait anymore and let himself been through his transformation and finally release in his death.
Molière’s play “Tartuffe and Oscar Wilde’s play “The Importance of Being Earnest” both demonstrate a comical portrait of hypocrisy. In “Tartuffe”, the main character Tartuffe is seen as a religious hypocrite who takes advantage of Orgon’s wealth and agrees to marry his daughter, Mariane against her wishes. In “The Importance of Being Earnest”, Jack and Algernon both lie about their identity to get the woman of their dreams. The authors use the concept of double personalities in the play to reveal the deceit and lies to represent the theme of hypocrisy. In fact, hypocrisy is not only displayed in the characters but in the play as a whole. Additionally, the plays are both hypocrital in ways that they do not follow the structure of comedy.
In conclusion, Charles Dickens, a social critic of humble origins himself, has conveyed his conception of a true gentleman, which is such a good conception that it is commonly used in our society today. He shows that you can only be a true gentleman at heart and if you are not it will be revealed. Matthew Pocket’s metaphor that ‘No varnish can hide the grain of the wood; and that the more varnish you put on, the more the grain will express itself’ very successfully delivers and summarises Dickens’ message, that no matter how much you try to, your true identity will always be revealed. It also effectively reinforces Dickens’ treatment of the Victorian preconception of a gentleman as misconstrued and mistakenly engrossed with social status, wealth, birth, and apparel.
Integrity is an idea that has been discussed by individuals with a verbal acuity far beyond anything I could ever hope for. With that in mind, I will not delve deeply or poetically into what integrity is or should mean. However, I will simplify the meaning of integrity; at the core, integrity boils down to doing what is right even if nobody is watching. See a piece of trash on the ground and nobody is around...pick it up. Driving down the road with no cops in sight...drive the speed limit. Arrive at a tollbooth and no attendant is working…pay the toll. An applicant is not readily available to sign a form for enlistment…track them down and ensure they sign it. I could write examples until infinity becomes paltry in comparison, yet I am sure I have made my point clearly; the greater good must be upheld regardless of who is there to ensure it is happening. It seems obvious that integrity should be a trait every individual is hardwired with from birth. However, integrity is a thankless trait; nobody is around after all. An individual cannot expect someone to clap, to smile, to thank them, to do anything actually. By definition, integrity should be something that is followed through with simply because an individual wishes to do what is correct, not because they expect accolades of any sort.
In Robert Bolt’s, “A man for all seasons”, Sir Thomas More did not die in vain. He stayed true to himself. More achieved more in the end because he didn’t let death worry him. His last words illustrate this “His will not refuse one who is so blithe to go” (pg. 99). More understood that he was in line with his beliefs. More fought for what he believed in and refused to be molded into something that he wasn’t. He knew that by dying, he would be proving a point to the public and let it be known that Cromwell had set him up.
Shakespeare's King Lear is a play which shows the consequences of one man's decisions. The audience follows the main character, Lear, as he makes decisions that disrupt order in his Kingdom. When Lear surrenders all his power and land to his daughters as a reward for their demonstration of love towards him, the breakdown on order in evident. Lear's first mistake is to divide his Kingdom into three parts. A Kingdom is run best under one ruler as only one decision is made without contradiction. Another indication that order is disrupted is the separation of Lear's family. Lear's inability to control his anger causes him to banish his youngest daughter, Cordelia, and loyal servant, Kent. This foolish act causes Lear to become vulnerable to his other two daughters as they conspire against him. Lastly, the transfer of power from Lear to his eldest and middle daughter, Goneril and Regan, reveals disorder as a result of the division of the Kingdom. A Kingdom without order is a Kingdom in chaos. When order is disrupted in King Lear, the audience witnesses chaotic events that Lear endures, eventually learning who truly loves him.
Tennessee Williams’ Suddenly Last Summer is a one-act play with a cast of colourful characters ranging from the eccentric Violet to the troubled Catherine. One individual, George Holly, is more minor than others, and as such might get overlooked. However, the Fictional World method of analysis uncovers new insight into his nature. By analysing George’s character in the Social World of the play specifically, we get a better understanding of how traumatic and powerful the climax really is.
Combining the antics of a circus with the pomp of a royal court is a difficult task indeed. William Shakespeare's genius came from how closely he intertwined the two seemingly mutually exclusive realms to appeal to all socioeconomic groups in his audience. In King Lear, Edgar's appearance as Tom of Bedlam, Lear's insanity, and Lear's Fool provide the comic relief which slices the dramatic tension. Among these, Lear's Fool provides the closest intercourse of the two realms of royalty and tomfoolery while still maintaining their separation.
... example of what is right and to show how powerful duty is. Without Kent the play would take a completely different course. He is able to connect the King's madness with the loss of reason that Lear displays in the first scene. Kent is a representative of Lear before he lost his power.
Everyman play originated in late 15th century, it was an English morality play by its anonymous author. It is one of the finest play and outside the circles of historical scholars. The emphasis of Everyman focuses on morality of the play which was used by its author so symbolically in its characterization. It is a tribute with the modern audiences on the success of this play with its dramatic structure. It became one of the great plays of all time to be written in its era (late 15th century).