ACT ONE
reaction assignment
Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar during the Elizabethan age. People in that time did not regard democracy the same way you would. How might a modern audience's reaction to the events in Act One differ from the reaction to the events of a 16th century audience?
First response gets 5 Extra Credit points. Best response gets 5 Extra Credit points.
Hint: Discuss fear.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I definitely think people in our time period would reject Ceasar as a figure of power because I feel the overwhelming power and Influence Ceasar had on the people of Rome is unheard of today.His authority extended so far into their lives in fact nearly none would even think to question his rule.In our time period today mentalitys like this are not common. (although they do exist and especially prosper in third world countries) The reason for this being uncommon is because of people like Plato who refused to conform to what society saw fit as his personal way of life.Another reason for this difference in mindset is religions like christianity. That bring the focus of the culture, political system, and religion off the single centeral political figure. (monarch,king, or emperor)Thus bringing rise to the political system being designed by the people for the people as we so unawarely enjoy in america today.
Oh and I almost forgot to use the hint... the reason Ceasars authority was so unquestioned was because of the fear of being killed for question of the kings authority.
I think that the modern audience's reaction to the events in Act One would be quite different than the reaction of the audience from the 16th century because we have been under or seen democracy for a long time, where we do not believe in an all powerful ruler. The way most people viewed and acted toward Caesar in act I scene ii would seem common and understood by an audience of the 16th century because they knew what it was like being under an all powerful ruler. A modern audience would not really see a reason to do everything Caesar said. Also the actions of the characters would be taken in differently by the two audiences. The conversations between many of the characters would sound like treason to the audience of the 16th century while a modern audience would see it as merely expressing an opinion. Also because of fear people were not use to speaking out and questioning authority in the 16th century; however questioning authority does not seem so out there to believe that someone from the 16th century would not question authority like Brutus and Cassius.
-Leticia Ayala
(>^^<)
In our day and age, being a part of our democratic society as we are, people are a lot more outspoken, are definitely not afraid to share their opinions, and aren't scared to fight for what they want, which was completely different from back when Caesar ruled.
In Julius Caesar's time, and Shakespeare's time for that matter, the people were very inverted with their thoughts and opinions since it meant treason to speak their mind against the ruler. To them, since the beginning of their lives and far back as any of them could remember, a single monarch was just how things worked. I don't think the people would really consider true democracy like the kind we see today. Because of this closed-mindedness of the opportunities to change government, they learned how things worked and made sure they remained the same. Since the people only knew that there must be a single leader, they supported (by gossip, rumors, and popularity influencing their opinions partially) whomever was next to rule out of fear of being looked down upon.
I think that the people back then would not have let their society go democratic at the time period they were in; there were waaay too many ambitious people that wanted all the power for themselves and their peers, that those elite would never relinquish the power to the people. The communities would reject the idea of democracy as giving the poor too much power and actually letting them speak their mind and have a say, which was practically blasphemy in that age.
For modern people, they have no such fear of being punished for speaking their minds, because there is no such punishment (except in rare extreme cases perhaps). In the United States, i do believe we would no sooner let a single monarch be put in charge than make a donkey president.
In Act 1 of J.C., some of the characters are blatantly expressing what they think and are openly plotting against the life of their almost ruler. Back then, this was the ultimate kind of treason; had they been found out, Caesar most likely would have had them killed as he came into power. The audiences back then would have seen these events as awful deeds these men have done, slandering their righteous ruler; "they deserve to die" they'd say. However, audiences nowadays have no such thoughts. They see this speaking-of-the-mind as completely normal; we do it every day. There is nothing out of place with these characters wanting to do what they believe is right for their city; this is justhow we grew up thinking.
Also, any viewers or readers of this work in the 16th century understand exactly what it must have been like for these characters in J.C., with hatred for their leader (or one of their leaders) and a want for change. The differences between this audience and the characters is: the audience knows exactly the consequences of acting on opinions and thoughts like Brutus and Cassius did, and they do not want bad things to happen if they choose to follow the same path, while the characters did not give a hoot what happened to them; they just wanted this suspected bad out of a position of power.
A modern day audience would react completely different from the 16th century audience. Our democracy includes real opinions and people can vote for who they want to rule them,not who decides they should be the ruler; in the 16th century there really were no expressed opinions or voting. People went along with what others thought because by expressing your own opinion you were making yourself different and that could and usually would result in death. People from our time period would not stand for this, someone would speak up even if they didnt become king/queen. there is less fear now to do this because we are no longer in the begining of our politcal systems life and we have developed the rules and tools to make it work. in the 16th century people werent as used to "democracy" and werent sure exactly was right or wrong. Ceasar was a tyrant and people had no choice but to listen to him.
I think that we as an audience see Julius' Caesar's power as a tyrant. Yeah in the 16th Century it seem like a normal thing. But as we started growing in the democracy area our ideas change. For example, we now have a Senate, Congress and a President. The President is a modern version of a king, but unlike most kings he actually listens to his people. So yeah I believe that we see Julius' Caesar's power as someone who at the beginning rejected having power what so ever. But as he grew to the idea he wanted more power. Back in the 16th century it seem normal enough because the kings were always expanding their empires. Though people hated him, they did not do anything to overthrow Caesar because they were afraid of what he might do to them
-Estela
I think people in the now modern period would mostly disagree with all powerful ruling of Caesar and overall power actually. People didn't really react or went against the power controlling them because of the fear they had which kept them from acting against. There was no speaking of your mind in Shakespeare's time because you would be punished. People in modern time as reckless as they are now would probably react against not measuring the consequences.
The modern and the 16th century
audience would have differ reactions towards Act I. The modern audience would not belive in Caesar beacuse one person with
unlimited power would go imperial. The modern audience have the right to vote and have their voices heard. while the 16th century audince have differ "rights" women would not be allowed to vote only some men and that is not democracy.The modern audience have been living with democracy longer while the 16th century adience does not.
The reactions between a modern audience and a 16th century audience of the way democracy was functioned, differ by the way their societies work. Back then, the people did not have a chance to speak out and go against their government, unless they wanted to be severely and brutally punished. If one even questioned their government, they would be seen as a threat toward the society.Such events back then were normal, tolerable, and were caused by the fear they had of a cruel ruler, such as Julius Caesar. Now a days, people learn from the past and in our heads,we know what is right and wrong. In Caesar's tyrannical rule, modern people see it as intolerable. It is something we are not use to because we live with rights and we have no need to fear the government, for we have laws on our side.
I believe that the people of our time would not take living under Caesars rule very well. Back in Caesars time, the ruler pretty much had supreme power over everyone and everything. Rulers in todays time period, such as our president Barack Obama, have no where near as big an influence or amount of control over the public and over the politics as they did back then in the 16th century. If todays America was some how put in a situation where Caesar was our ruler, we would without a doubt, rebel and overthrow him. However, during Caeser's rule, people were not allowed to be so free of thought. If you were caught speaking badly of your leader,or even speaking about things that the government did not approve of, you would be in loads of trouble.(Think of Socrates in the Greek civilization and how he was killed) In the end, fear was undoubtedly the reason why Caesar's authority was never questioned by commoners; they had to be cautious, and keep to themselves for their own personal safety.
People today would react very different than back then. People now have come to know democracy and not the way it is in Julius Caesar. In Julius Caesar, people were repected if they conquered, and were big in war. Now people respect people who know how to rule and know what people like, and know how to be in charge. People now would react extremely different also because circumstances back then were different than they are now.
Most people living under Caeser's rule in a modern age would in my beliefs, impeach or revolt against him. We are so far gone from a dictatorship that in this day and age, is unheard of. In act 1 you see many charecters reaction to such a power and and have similiar ideas towards revolution. A 16th century person watching this play might be thinking with less bias towards dicatosrship rather than a modern day person because of the monarchies and dictatosrships that have evolved into kingships and counsels. In my opinion, to even attemp a dictatorship in present day is preposterous and would ultimately fail. As for the hint, people in the time feared caeser and his strong counsel so many remained silenced in thier views towards him.
People today would react very differently to Caesar's rule than they did during the Elizabethan Age. Back then it was unheard of to rebel against your ruler. Also, you could possibly be punished if you were heard conspiring against them. This instilled fear in the citizens, therefore preventing them from disagreeing and denying his power. Now, if we don't like our leader we have the freedom to voice our opinions. Instead of killing our leader, we simply impeach them. Citizens were also not allowed to have the kind of input in politics that we have. Today we would feel that it is completely unfair for Caesar to have such supreme power over the entire country.
I feel that modern people would reject ceaser due to the fact that the amount of influene he had over people is very uncommon now and could scare people.He was so influencal that hardly any of the people thpught to question his athority. Now though things like this are not commaon due to the fact that people fallow a different way of life. They feel that they dont have to conform into what society wants from them therefore making them somewhat reblious which would not happen with Ceaser as our ruler. this would not hapen because the people of the 16th century were so ferful of being killed due to questioning of the kings authority.
I believe that people would not react well to Caesar being their ruler, because rulers back then controlled every aspect of life. In todays government our "ruler" is not as controlling in peoples everyday lives, people today would not respect Caesar as a power figure or accept his ideas. The common people during that time were not able to be free or have different thoughts, however those are the values in which our country was founded on. Also Caesars only way of controlling his people was inflicting fear, this would just cause people today to rebel beacause they are free
Julius Ceasar had a sort of absolute power. Sure, some people could show their opinions but what Ceasar said went. Now, the idea of one person having absolute power scares people. People don't want their fates in the hands of one man, whereas in the Elizabethan age, that how it was. People like democracy because they feel that their opinion matters and can be heard. They don't fear the ruler as much if they think they have a say in his decisions. If a modern audience witnessed these action,they would be appalled by the idea of one person having so much power of the fates of his people.
As a person living under the modern day democracy I reacted to the events in Act One with an open mind. I thought, and questioned the morals of the characters being presented and always wondered "why?" and just like general modern day audience, their reaction would be to question. This is different from the 16th century audience because they live in a time where they fear the consequences of questioning for the higher power might take it into offence and have that person removed from society. Our democracy is based off freedom and supreme power relying the people in which our four fathers had given us. While their democracy was based off the people, but based off the people with the most money, and power. The events in Act One involve a festival of praise for a man, who in the 21st century is formulated out to be a tyrant, but in the 16th century is seen as a powerful ruler with questionable motives. This would raise eye brows to a modern day audience because of the fact that they are praising a man who they do not entirely agree with or want with power, seeing some of these people as following the bandwagon. And then there's the event where Cassius manages to coax Brutus into considering the assasination of Caesar, making the modern day audience think that to achieve power or a voice in their society you must be violent. To a 16th century audience, this probably happened from time to time and they were use to it, but to an audience in the modern day century this way of democracy would seem unbareable.
I think that a modern audience would react quite differently from an audience from the Elizabethan Age because today, everything is much more civilized and elaborate than the 16th century. Everybody over 18 is free to vote for our leaders. Instead, 16th century's minorities and commoners had no say in voting. Only the votes of the nobles and wealthy people actually counted. Also fear works its way into the whole "democracy" Rome had, because some of the people running to be a leader of Rome actually hired gangsters or mafias to "persuade" some civilians to vote for them.
i think that people in our time could never relive the time of caesar rule for all that caesar ever did was to create fear onto his people and conrtol them so that they kept the peoples mind shut. The modern people today when they look back at that time they can see all the flaws in their reasoning and the people can never go under the rule of just one person and being told what to do, and the people of today would always question the reasoning of one person and in the 16th century people dared not to ask question for the fear of the consequence that may cause upon them
I beleive that the modern day audience would not agree with Julius Caesar's power. Now, our system works in a way were everyones voice is heard, not only one persons. Julius Caesar enjoyed the power because he was the only one to hold it, and nobody could have said otherwise. However, with democracy, we could all put in our little part and make our choices much better.
People today would be scared because we do not wish to be controlled because we have so much rights and liberty & Caesar (kings) completely ruled their kingdom. Back then, people did not have as many priviladges. Especially women, so women would strongly reject this.
I think that people from the 21st century would react differently then people from the 16th century would react to Caesar's rule. One reason I think this is because modern day people are exposed to a different type of democracy then the people from the 16th century were. In our government, we do not have a single ruler, instead we have three branches of government that all have to agree on a matter, action, or solution to a problem before it can be put into action. This makes it so that a single person does not have complete power, which I think is a well-developed idea because three groups of minds are better then one. Also, all peoples that make up the three branches of the government are elected to represent the voice of the people. I believe that modern day people are used to this type of government, a government where you can express your ideas and opinions freely without having to live in constant fear because you spoke out for what you believe in. Because they have grown accustomed to this type of government, I think modern day folks would be outraged by Caesar's tyranny, and then even more outraged that they couldn't even express their true feelings about the subject because they would be killed, whereas people from the 16th century accepted Caesar as a ruler because they weren't used to having their opinions heard or getting any say in the way the government was run.
In my opinion, an audience of the 16th Century would react much differently than a modern audience would. An audience of the 16th Century could relate more to the tyrranical aspects of Julius Caesar, as they experienced a small part of it for themselves. Although the ruler of England was neither a tyrrant nor a dictator, he still had substantial role over his people in his country. In this way, a 16th Century audience could empathize with the Romans when it came to the fear of disobeying their ruler. In contrast, a modern audience would not understand at all the fear that the Romans had, as people today have almost no experience with it. Today, our country is ran through a system of checks and balances to assure that none of the three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) gain to much power. Besides this, all citizens also have somewhat of an influence in our government, as they have the right to vote for state and federal matters. A modern audience would quite simply be driven to the point of anger because they are not at all accustomed to the fear, oppression, or tyrranical rule of their government.
Post a Comment