Did you mention productions in King Lear? (1 Viewer)

[Husayn]

How do you get his poll thing to work?

EDIT: NEVER MIND.

 

[what971]

Um... Don't... you... have... to...?

 

[Husayn]

That's what I thought, because how can you formulate a critical study without actually backing up your arguments with proof?

 

[Husayn]

OK now to those who did mention productions, how much of your essay focused on productions?

Because the way I did it was to provide examples of the themes from the text and then back it up with the productions (to prove that the interpretation was indeed possible and not just my own fantasy).

 

[Meads]

In a critical study of a text you have to do more than analyse the texts reception in different contexts, you must also explore things like themes, language, structure, and in the case of King Lear dramatic technique.

The entire response did not have to be based on different production, as a matter of fact I think it would of been better if you didn't.

 

[penciltron]

jeeeeeez
thanks god i used a production
i used a brooke's production to back up my vview wen i was talking about the storm...the rest i did critical interpretations..
felling more confident about my response now that people are saying we were supposed to use readings/ prods to back it up..

 

[Mandy101]

I only wrote a paragraph on Brooke's production to back up one of my points. The essay wasn't really about productions.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I made references to the productions and briefly discussed how that production portrayed a particular reading, just to provide an example to prove such an interpretation had in fact been made.
However, I spent most of my essay discussing the language features used by Shakespeare.

 

[duliel]

DAMMIT! FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK!... pardon...

Well shittity shittity poo....

I read the rubrics and there was a definite point about productions and adaptations (context)...

I used the whole booklet for that question (and used presious time from Frontline), I began by describing how the texts were received at different times (E.g. 18th C., 20th C., etc) and why.
Then I described Phillipa Kelley's reading briefley, continuing on with different scenes and how they were presented in different ways by different people (E.g. Elliot, Brook, Eyre, Miller, Kozintsev, Tate, A.C. Bradley etc.) and critics.
I included the comparisons and contrasts of the performaces (I.e. The staging) and the emphisis and points trying to be made.
I began finnishing up by adding a few more production techniques and how they fit in well with the structure and language of the play.

I forgot to add in more of the THEMES!!! and analyse the actual language of the original play.... DAMMIT! FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK!... pardon...

 

[what971]

I made references to the productions and briefly discussed how that production portrayed a particular reading, just to provide an example to prove such an interpretation had in fact been made.
However, I spent most of my essay discussing the language features used by Shakespeare.

My essay was spent on discussing different productions and interpretations. One of us is f*cked.

 

[duliel]

Well think of it this way:
If you made sure you stated that it was still a good critical study text to use, then all you had to do was prove it ...... with some strategically placed points and quotes inrelation to the construction, language and [insert thired thing].... WTF?!??! sorry, i just blanked out there for a sec..... what did i miss?

 

[cataleptic]

I alluded to Peter Brook's 1970 film.

And I used the arguments of two critics to back up each of my interpretations.

 

[aurora_05]

My essay was spent on discussing different productions and interpretations. One of us is f*cked.

That's what I did too. I even went as far as to make up the name of a critic in order to support one of my points about Brook's production. Im so cool

 

[Carnivour]

Well, I talked about language and productions. And people should really stop worrying about the question - they just rephrase it every year, sometimes to make obvious the assumed features that should be included in a Lear essay - such as construction, language. When you write a Lear essay, you mention these thing anyway through a discussion of themes. This year they just verbally mentioned it in the question. No biggy. Now, if you didnt discuss themes, thats when you begin to think you're screwed.

 

[what971]

No biggy. Now, if you didnt discuss themes, thats when you begin to think you're screwed.

um.. THEMES?

How about if you talk about 'themes' in the interpretations and productions, instead of the actual play?

eg. Linking Marxist political ideology theme = Kozinstev
Family Psychology and Social impact = Eyre
Aristotelian tragedy theme = Elliot

Is that good enough, or have I f*cked myself?

 

[Danni07]

I did it like this:
Theme, language techniques to back up that theme, quotes and effect, interpretation relating to theme, quote supporting that interpretation, production which supports interpretation, techniques from production.

 

[jess121]

How Did You Set It Out?

ok i think we are all on the right track with what to include...hopefully. How did people set it out? essay? speech? please tell me!

 

[?wha?]

meh, it didn't ask for productions. i only mentioned books and eyre like twice each throughout the whole essay for the heck of it

 

[rnitya_25]

it doesn't have to, they never ask you to specifically write about productions, you should just know that it integrates your discussion, that's what advice line, and my teachers said. i talked about harlos production, Cut productions and Nahum Tate's production.

 

[Husayn]

Yes, refer to exemplar responses and you'll see that productions are the focus of some essays (even though the question doesn't ask for productions) - refer to the 2002 one (which was very similar to our question this year).