GCSE English Directors Notes on Act 4 of The Crucible by Arthur Miller

GCSE English Directors Notes on Act 4 of The Crucible by Arthur Miller As the Director of this play, I feel it is my responsibility to offer you advice on playing the character of John Proctor. I'm sure you'll find it may help you to understand the character if you are aware of the social and historical context of the play. The play is set in 1692 and is based upon the outbreak of accusations in Salem, Massachusetts. Arthur Miller wrote the play The Crucible, using the 17th-century case of witch trials (and fictionalising it) to comment on a 20th-century phenomenon-the hunting of communists as if they were witches. In 17th century Salem the inhabitants feared witchcraft, like America feared communism, both were exaggerated and both communities overreacted to an insignificant threat to their stability of life. Arthur Miller had always had a personal interest in the Salem Witch trials, but at the time he was writing the play, America was in the middle of the McCarthy political "Witch Hunt". Miller himself was called up before a committee for signing petitions, and he began to notice many similarities between the two trials, such as the naming of names and public confessions. This has meant that his play is seen as a political parable. In 1692, the colonists in Salem were Puritans and very protective of their particular religion and would tolerate no other. They felt threatened by those who were different, witches were the most extreme in difference to their way of life and so everything from death to a poor harvest was blamed on them. Proctor is presented at the beginning of the play as a stern, harsh-tongued man, however, he is well respected in the village. We soon learn of his affair with Abigail, his servant, who was dismissed because Proctor's wife found out about the affair. Proctor is involved in a disagreement about land and when he returns home in the evening it becomes apparent that he sees straight through the accusations of witchcraft being thrown about the village. Abby still loves John Proctor but her feelings for him are not returned. Proctor's wife Elizabeth is found to be pregnant but some doubt this, but Proctor says his wife would never lie. Proctor convinces Mary to go to court and tell the court that it is all fraud, but Mary becomes frightened and says Proctor is the one who has allegiance to the Devil; Hale who clearly doubt... ...The court collapses shortly afterward, undone by the refusal of its victims to propagate lies. Another one of the plays themes relevant to Act 4 is Reputation. , Proctor seeks to keep his good name from being spoilt. Early in the play, he has a chance to put a stop to the girls' accusations, but his desire to preserve his reputation keeps him from testifying against Abigail. At the end of the play, however, Proctor's desire to keep his good name leads him to make the choice not to make a false confession and to die without signing his name to an untrue statement. "I have given you my soul; leave me my name!" he cries to Danforth. By refusing to ruin his name, he redeems himself for his earlier sins and dies with integrity, another theme of the play. In conclusion, you should reflect in your representation of Proctor the many changes he goes through in this Act. From ashamed, to righteous as he denies the court a false confession. Proctor is honest and upright, but has made one mistake, which confessing to cost him his life. He is very proud and his integrity is very important to him, I wish you the very best of luck in playing this complex character on stage.

21st Century man is no more knowledgeable than his 19th Century predecessor: he simply thinks he is

To answer this question entirely and accurately it is necessary to define quite what we mean by knowledge. Knowledge is the state or fact of knowing; the familiarity, understanding or awareness gained through experience or study; the sum or range of what has been perceived, studied or learned; learning, erudition: teachers of great knowledge or specific information about someone. This question needs to be answered before we can say whether a layman has become more knowledgeable since the 19th century or not. I will focus on the first definition that states, â€Å"Knowledge is the state or fact of knowing. † A man's knowledge consists of facts and we cannot say whether these so-called facts are true because if somebody tells us something we merely take it for granted that it is the truth. We can mainly tell what the macroscopic properties of something are i. . if someone confronted us with a red baseball bat we would be able to see that it was red and metallic looking and nobody would be able to disprove these facts. If we looked at the baseball bat closer though, going into the realms of science and the theories surrounding it and somebody said that the rod was steel and the atomic structure of steel was such and such and the properties of it were such and such we wouldn't be able to see these things in reality. What we are taught in schools and elsewhere is basically the thoughts of other supposedly clever men and women and we cannot that they are true – to be very honest we cannot prove that anything is true not even that the world we live in is real and that we actually exist as people. An instance of everyone believing the words of some supposedly clever men is when before the time of Galileo (who proved this to be utter rubbish) it was widely believed that the world was flat and anyone who disagreed with this was joshed and laughed at, as everyone knew that the fact was that the earth was flat. This leads to my belief that in years to come things that we take for granted such as that we have landed on the moon will be proved to be complete rubbish and an immense cover-up by an embarrassed nation who could give its people what they wanted and so had to trick them into believing about space flight. From this we discover that knowledge is purely subjective and could not be any other way. Our knowledge of science or at least our layman's grasp of it is in fact a jumble of half-remembered â€Å"facts† which we regurgitate when necessary. My view at the moment would be that a layman in the 21st century does know more a bout science than his predecessor in the 19th century. In the 19th century education was neither compulsory nor state-funded as it is today and so only the rich would have the benefit of a sound education and they could not be counted as lay. Even if they could be counted as lay though due to the fact that there has apparently been extremely large amounts of scientific discoveries made, such as that of electricity, between the 19th century and the present day. Other resources such as the media and the internet help to make information more widely available to us today and these certainly wouldn't have been available or even existed in the 19th century. Every bit of this contributes to our so-called knowledge making us a more knowledgeable human being. We at Winchester College are in a slightly different situation to the your Joe Public on the street but even we have no idea what Phenyl Cyclo Hexyl Hyperidine (otherwise known as PCP) actually is. Now we ask ourselves do the scientists who do these things actually know that they are true or are they merely making educated guesses about them. They don't; they merely speculate and that is the most that anyone can do. The fact that these scientists are always improving their theories suggests even more so that they are speculatory, as a fact cannot be changed in such a way by definition. The only thing that can be said to be a fact upon this apparently realistic earth, actually a simulation, is the Ultimate fact – that God exists. Unfortunately this is only the Ultimate fact to those who believe in God so even this can be argued against. Humans, at least in my knowledge, has not evolved at all since the 19th century thus our brains have no more capacity for extra knowledge, merely that we have extra information crammed into our head due to the fact that information is more readily available to us, rather than actually having more knowledge than we did in the 19th century. We could thus be called more knowledgeable but we don't even know whether this so-called information is actually true or not.

William Shakespeare s King Lear - 2234 Words

In the world of Shakespeare’s King Lear, the themes of justice and injustice pervade. Viewers are challenged by the dichotomy between man’s inherent goodness and man’s inherent evil. The concepts of justice and injustice are always rooted in the presumption of imbalances of some kind, and this is certainly the case in King Lear. It is littered with imbalances throughout, including the struggles between young and old, good and evil, rich and poor. The play can be seen as a series of trials eventually ending in what some may regard as justice and others may regard as grotesque nihilism (Snyder 3) at its finest. Whether or not there is any justice in the world of King Lear leads to the question of divine justice and its role in the play.†¦show more content†¦The play begins with the first trial and ultimately the first injustice. King Lear’s arrogant, foolish plan is to divide his kingdom up amongst his three daughters while still retaining the comf orts and honor associated with being king. Instead of divvying his kingdom up equally between the sisters, Lear decides who will get which portion of the kingdom on the basis of who can display the most filial love for him. Tell me, my daughters, (Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state) Which of you shall we say doth love us most That we our largest bounty may extend Where nature doth with merit challenge? (1.1.49-54) Goneril and Regan extravagantly oblige their father and shower him in praise and love, and in return each receive a third of the kingdom. When Cordelia is asked what she can say to convince her father she loves him the most and is deserving of a large portion of the kingdom, she simply replies with â€Å"Nothing, my Lord† (1.1.88). Cordelia refuses to participate in this absurd contest and recognizes that it is an inane, ridiculous request. â€Å"A sort of shameful reticence seems to ally with her refusal to accept a rhetorical competitive context, which, according to Cordelia, excludes the possibility of expressing true feelings. It therefore happens that Cordelia s inability or unwillingness to compete with