Does Clarkpresent arguments for and against assisted suicide without
prejudicing the audience in Whose Life Is It Anyway?
The central character in 'Whose Life Is It Anyway?' is Ken Harrison
who is a patient in the hospital, in which the play is set. The play
sees Ken, who has been involved in a horrific car accident, recovering
from various injuries, some of which will never heal. The accident
leaves Ken paralysed from the neck downwards permanently, which
results in him having to stay in hospital for the rest of his life.
Throughout the play Ken fights for the right to die, as he sees the
situation he is in as one that is not worth living. After many
struggles and set-backs, Ken is allowed to die, but against the
doctors' will.
The play was written in the 1970's when euthanasia, a form of assisted
suicide, was not a subject commonly discussed. An audience watching
the play in the 1970s would be far more shocked at some of the events
that take place than a present-day audience. In the 1970s most people
did not fully understand euthanasia and the effects of it and it was
certainly not talked about openly.
An audience thirty years ago would be quite shocked and possibly
offended by the language used by Ken and some of the hospital staff.
Also Ken's behaviour in general would be quite different from the sort
of behaviour people thirty years ago would expect to see in a theatre
or on stage. His sexual innuendo and his openness to discuss sexual
matters with the nurses would make a 1970's audience feel
uncomfortable.
A present-day audience would be less shocked by these matters as
euthanasia is quite a commonly heard of issue with three high profile
cases occurring in the last twelve months. One exam...
... middle of paper ...
... into disliking
him. For example, the way he never listens to anyone else's opinions,
least of all his patients, whom he looks upon as if they are 'under'
him, and they way he thinks he is unquestionable. "But you can't
decide that." He makes decisions without consulting anyone else, or
even listening to what they think.
Ken, however, has the opposite effect. He has many nice qualities,
such as his humour, despite his situation. "Have me on the floor
Sister, please. Have me on the floor." Also we empathise with him, and
the situation he is in and the audience is very prejudiced to warm to
Ken and support him because of these qualities he possesses.
In "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" the characters and visual aids prejudice
the audience for euthanasia and assisted suicide, but Clark does
present the arguments for and against this issue using these two aids.
The characters address the audience; the fast movement from scene to scene juxtaposing past and present and prevents us from identifying with particular characters, forcing us to assess their points of view; there are few characters who fail to repel us, as they display truly human complexity and fallibility. That fallibility is usually associated with greed and a ruthless disregard for the needs of others. Emotional needs are rarely acknowledged by those most concerned with taking what they maintain is theirs, and this confusion of feeling and finance contributes to the play's ultimate bleak mood.
I think that people who grew up in the sixties and worked during the time period would enjoy the play. I feel that they would have a different understanding of it because they grew up in the time period and lived through what was going on. Over all the play head a straight forward point that in my opinion put J. Pierrepont Finch as the protagonist because everything revolved around him, he had a simple objective and every set or choice he made affected something or someone.
There would be more of an effect on the audience at the time, as it
shall firstly do a summery of the play and give a basic image of what
Mark Lambeck uses the drama’s setting to relate Intervention to the audience. Specifically, he uses a vague yet understandable modern time. An audience can relate knowing they could experience the same thing on any given day. The location of the play is also a place an audience could easily find themselves. It is vague place that could represent almost anywhere, perhaps in where the audience is. In the current world, one could easily find themselves walking down the street on their cell phone. The characters are constant...
the play. It looks at the person he is and the person he becomes. It
This is a lesson that is still relevant today. Though the acting and dialogue seem to appeal to an older audience, young viewers can still enjoy and learn from this play. Prejudice, suspicion, and thoughtlessness are as prevalent as ever. For any problem, humans will look for a scapegoat. The War on Terror seems to bring similar feelings as those around during the Cold War.
The play is set in three scenes. The entire play is set in the dining
project of the play, of which is touched upon in Act One. It is this
The play also conveys a strong political message. The play encourages the idea of socialism, a society in which responsibility and community are essential, also a place where the community all work together and are responsible for their actions. This is in contrast to capitalism. JB priestly wrote the play in 1945, but it was set in 1912 just before the war, it was later performed in 1946. The play was written after World War I and World War II, Priestley used this to his advantage, it makes the audience feel awful after what has just happened, the majority of the audience would have either lived through one or both of the wars.
Throughout Rajiv Joseph’s play, Gruesome Playground Injuries, the two characters, Doug and Kayleen, sporadically meet throughout the course of 30 years due to injuries ranging from getting “beaten up pretty badly” (Joseph 31) to going into a “coma” (Joseph 27). The play starts out with the two characters first meeting in the school nurse’s office with injuries of their own. This is the start of a relationship that is full of pain and healing throughout the years. Told in a very unique structure of five year increments, the play shows how injuries, a reoccurring image that may be self-inflicted or inflicted upon one, bring the pair together when either is in a dire situation.
the play may be pass to modern society, that one may not learn, or even
story and lasting throughout the play with the constant themes of deception and doing evil in the
...relies on this basis, to establish a greater awareness and comprehension of 1960s society. Without this assumed knowledge of Hamlet, one cannot truly appreciate Stoppard’s play, which informs society about their nature and shortcomings.
Three small words can bring inner happiness to me and others. Having the ability to change your attitude towards life and what defines one will create a feeling of peace. Living your life can bring good and bad regrets, but by the choice we make can bring happiness, and a meaningful life. The goal of this essay is to show what credo I live by and what defines me as a person. Having the power to live with the choices I had made, determination towards a goal, and finding a deeper meaning to life.