More handpicked essays just for you.
The significance of arthur millers a view from the bridge
Arthur Miller. A view of the bridge
York notes how Miller presents the theme of tragedy in the play A view from the bridge
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In "a view from the Bridge", justice and law are not presented as being synonymous.
The play "A view from the Bridge" by Arthur Miller shows the tragic demise of its protagonist "Eddie Carbone" and towards his demise we are presented with two different yet similar concepts; justice and the law. Although the two words usually stand side by side, "A view from the Bridge" shows how they are sometimes not synonymous with one another through: a belief in communal law or community values, the American system of justice and the analogy of settling for half.
The Red Hook community is described by Alfieri to be dominated by different ethnic communities, which bring with them different cultural beliefs and values. One of the dominating races within Red Hook is the Sicilian community, and Alfieri conveys the view that family honor and respect as well are of paramount importance to that community, as well as a general lack of faith in the quality of the American justice system. Alfieri states "Justice is very important here" which demonstrates how revenge on others even if it where outside the law fits in with their cultural values and ethnic beliefs. The old saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" gives a very good idea of the community's view of justice. Alfieri is also implying that conflict is inevitable once injustice has been committed as the community is often dissatisfied with the "justice" the law brings they take it into their own hands to find this justice.
Arthur Miller himself was charged with contempt by a U.S Court and was faced with the dilemma of choosing to abide by the law, or accept community justice and not "rat" on his friends and family. A View from the Bridge criticizes those during the McCarthy trials (ones Arthur Miller was involved) who had "ratted" out innocent people. Arthur Miller chose to write about a community that accepted and protected unlawful people because of their own beliefs in justice and fairness, which is, in essence, what the law attempts to be based on but ultimately cannot because "All the law is not in a book". When Marco is betrayed by Eddie, he cannot accept the laws stated in America and although Alfieri states "there is no other law" outside the "law", the community has set "justices" that tell them NOT to rat on immigrants. This shows how justice and law go against each other.
This whole play by Arthur Miller shows how our community will turn on each other to save ourselves no matter if it’s right or wrong and it’s true in our society today. It also shows how a good man regained his happiness and holiness by standing up for what’s right against the lies and sacrificed himself for the truth.
In any community, the people rely on the power of law and justice to protect them. When the guardians of the law and order misuse their power it brings tragedy upon the town. In Arthur Miller’s The Crucible the inappropriate actions of the character of Judge Danforth, the voice of authority of the community leads to the tragedy of social disruption of the town accompanied by breakdown in communal solidarity.
Reading newspapers or watching TV at home, at least we find one article or news describing a killing, a shooting, or an armed robbery. With all these problems, we are in fear but cannot avoid hearing and dealing with them. They happen every day and some time justice system blunders and leads to wrongly convict people for what they do not commit. This is reality of wrecked system that is resulted by injustice and corruption. Ultimately, Errol Morris confirms this reality based on a true story of an innocent convicted Randal Adams for a criminal case by creating a film, The Thin Blue Line. David Harris, an important accuser, claims Adams was a murderer and shot Robert Wood, a Dallas police officer. With Morris’ suspicion of Adams’ innocence, he turns himself to be a detective movie director and investigates the criminal case that occurred in Dallas, Texas in 1976. His goal is to show that Adams was wrongly convicted and justice system was flawed. By using juxtaposition and recreations, Morris successfully contrasts Adams and Harris to show that Adams is innocent and Harris is guilty, intensifies distrust of the legality in Adams’ wrong conviction to prove a flawed legal system, and evinces the eye witnesses are discreditable.
?What is left when honor is lost?? Publilius Syrus' quote, though dating from 100 B.C., still seems pertinent to our era (Quotations). Many people still feel that once integrity is lost they are nothing and many are willing to stand up to keep their integrity. Without integrity, we are nothing. During the time that Arthur Miller wrote his most famous play, The Crucible, innocent men and women are accused of having Communist leanings. Their whole lives are ruined in a short amount of time because they refuse to compromise themselves by selling out their friends. Miller tries to make a statement about these unfair trials by comparing them to the Salem witch-hunts and trials of 1692. The main protagonist of his play is a man named John Proctor who is accused of witchcraft but stands up to maintain his name and his honor, even though he is hanged for it. During the H.U.A.C. trials some took stands for their beliefs with the knowledge of possibly being shunned by society. Knowing this, instead of taking the cowards' way and giving the names of their friends, they refuse to tell the committee anything in the same way that John Proctor stands up against a court that is ruining the lives of innocent people.
Traditionalism and conservatism have always threatened the “rights” and easily strengthened the “wrongs” of society. Liberal ideals allow some people to see past the norms of the time into the heart of the matter or to predict a better future. Victimized people may be forced to see things differently even if they are not naturally liberal. The Crucible shows how these people—the liberals, victims and liberal victims—fought to stand by what they knew to be right, even when all of the voices and norms of society were against them. In the Salem in the play people who were accused were urged to confess based on the testimonies of others and the traditions of severe religious consequences and
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is a play that discusses many issues and spurs contemplation within the reader. While reading this play, because of the controversy of many issues detailed within, it is difficult for one not to take a look at one’s own morals and determine what one would do if placed in a similar situation. The key issues discussed within this play, the effects of hysteria, marital betrayal, and the murderous powers of lies, are portrayed intriguingly and effectively. The lessons that can be learned from The Crucible are still quite applicable today.
The Crucible by Arthur Miller raises many thought provoking issues throughout the play, including the importance of personal integrity, injustice in society and the rights of the community versus the rights of the individual.
Arthur Miller expresses the concept of oppression being present in every society through the characters of The Crucible. "It is still impossible for man to organize his social life without repressions." As discussed, personal motives, disputes and misuses of power, as well as distorted religious beliefs are the roots of the maltreatment in Salem. Miller’s statement and message is valid and applicable in every society, and for every
The absolute power of aristocracies is a scourge on society that corrupts minds and imposes too much of an impact on the lives of the majority. At the time when Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, society was subject to McCarthyism, the unquestionable authoritative force that could and did ruin the lives of those suspected of communism. Yet, of these people who suffered the brunt of punishment from authority, a numerous percentage of them displayed hypocrisy in accusing others out of survival. In The Crucible, Miller reflects this idea of hypocrisy in an environment where unquestionable authority reigns. His work displays the essentiality in rising out of such an insincere state and acting upon what
Costello, Donald P. “Arthur Miller’s Circles of Responsibility: A View From a Bridgeand Beyond.” Modern Drama. 36 (1993): 443-453.
In “Mistakes, Misunderstandings, and Misalignments” Jules L. Coleman argues, “there is an inconsistency in how the standard of care is set versus how damages are awarded [in the criminal justice system]” (). Meaning, the law does not abide by the same verdict when punishing as when protecting. When penalizing, the law usually targets the financially unfortunate in this case Hector. Conversely, when protecting, the criminal justice system seeks to defend the affluent, Emily. This creates a double standard in which fear is instilled in the poor while a sense of security is granted to the
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
Kafka’s The Trial delves into the life of Josef K., a bank worker who gets himself tied up in an unknown trial, against an indefinable and ultimately unaccountable legal system. While the piece is a work of fiction it parallels many of the legal problems in existence during the period in which Kafka was writing and to an extent gives a fictitious account of many real events going on. Many parallels can be seen in the trials of Alfred Dreyfus, Oscar Wilde, John Scopes and Nikolai Bukharin in various ways. The book indirectly questions legal principals such as an accessible system and a clear understanding of the process. Fundamentally these principles are missing from the other real trials in question, and represent in most cases a serious miscarriage of justice.
...is always someone or something that is looking for justice it is the basis for almost all movies, games,book, and more with out this theme in many of the things we watch, play, or read would seem to be lacking and dull.