Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Shakespeare post

Brutis speaks first, after he's killed Caesar. He starts off right away with pathos. He says that he was as good or better friends with ceaser than anyone in the audience. Then he goes into more emotional appeal. He uses the idea of freedom to stir the people's emotions. He states that killing Ceasar was neccasarry to freeing Rome. He also uses some logical appeal. He says that if they loved Rome basically, then none of them could be offended by him killing Ceasar. He finishes by saying that he is the new leader of Rome, and he thinks they should stab him, like he did with caesar, if he does them wrong. Before leaving Brutis reminds the crowd that Antony is speaking because he has allowed him too, implying that he will be a fair leader.
Then Antony speaks, he talks about Brutis being an honorable man, sarcastically. He discredits Brutis by saying if Caesar was ambitious then Brutis is as well. He uses emotional appeal when he says that Caesar cries with the poor. He tries to make the people feel guilty. He reminds them that they once loved Ceasar and thought he was good. He also uses a logical example,he says that Caesar denied the crown three times and therefor is not ambitious. Next he uses suspense with the reading of the will. He tells the people they will feel too bad he the will is read and the realize how much Caesar loved them. And finally Antony uses allot of emotional and ethical appeal to turn the crowd that was loyally supporting Brutis a few minutes before, against him.


Chelsea said...

You caught a lot of good things in their speeches- I especially like your analysis of Antony. He definitely utilizes guilt and emotion towards the end of his speech. I like how you caught the suspense he creates with the will- it probably further increases the raging emotions of the crowd, as well as cements the crowd's support and loyalty to Caesar and Antony. I mean, who wouldn't love someone who gave them 75 drachmas and beautiful gardens, right?? Good job.

tate103.blogspot.com said...

I didn’t think the actors in the play captured their parts very well. First of all, the actress for Cassius got on my nerves. For some reason, she thought she had to scream every one of her lines, which made it very hard to follow her character and what she was trying to convey. Also, I admire the actors for playing multiple roles, but the constant changing in roles made the play confusing. Another thing I noticed was that it was very hard to follow the dialogue in the first two acts. Again, I think this had a lot to do with the actors screaming their lines instead of just projecting their voices. The speeches were pretty good, but Antony’s speech was much more sarcastic then I envisioned it from the reading. Another funny thing I noticed was the change in eras. The time period was not made very clear. In the earlier acts, everyone was wearing toga-like cloaks and wearing daggers, and the backdrop projected a Roman-style building, which portrayed a Roman time period. But, later on in the battle scene, everyone wore Russian styled clothing and the whole scene looked something from World War 2. Yet, they were still fighting with measly daggers and those highly protective trashcan shields. Overall, the play could’ve been better, but it was nice to be able to see Julius Caesar in action.