Monday, 16 January 2017

Blog task - "Dr. Faustus" by Christopher Marlowe



       
         I have studied “Dr. Faustus: A play by Christopher Marlowe” in my first semester of Post Graduation. Dr. Dilip Barad has given an online task to perform after screening of the play.



Teacher’s instruction:

Tasks:

1) The play directed by Matthew Dunster for Globe theatre ends with this scene (see the image of Lucifer). What does it signify?

2) Is God present in the play? If yes, where and how? If No, why?

3) What reading and interpretation can be given to this image (see the image of Daedalus and Icarus) with reference to central theme of the play Dr. Faustus?

For activity – click here

My response

1) The image signifies the superiority of Lucifer, because it’s too late for Dr. Faustus to repent and at the end evil wins, it shows his victory.

2) Yes, god has presented in the play, form the first scene to the last scene of the play, because first scene opens with the monologue of Faustus, in which he challenges the god and in last scene he repent for it. God is there and that is why Dr. Faustus has that desire to be superior of god.

3) Dr. Faustus' fall was as like as the myth of Icarus he disobeys his father and Dr Faustus disobeyed the nature and his fall was great because the climb was high, it helps us to understand the theme of the play.

Blog Task - “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare




        I have studied “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare in my first semester of Post Graduation. Dr. Dilip Barad has given an online task to perform after movie screening of the film “Hamlet”



For activity - click here

My response to the blog task:


1) Movie is quite faithful to the play, because it has followed the text well, but it has also "a creative touch"  by the director, and in scenes like the conversation between ghost and Hamlet, Hamlet's rude behavior  towards Ophelia, we can notice it is very well directed and performed, it can express emotions as well as by imagination while reading.

2) At some point it has changed my perception about the play. While reading we can imagine the different kind of situations and scenes of the play, but after watching the movie we come to know about how the dialogues were delivered, and after observing  the expressions, we conclude the interpretation more effectively.  It has given a perfect support to the play to get proper meaning.

3) Yes,this is tragic play, though I felt 'aesthetic delight' while i have watched some comic scenes of Hamlet and when there is a scene of Ophelia and Hamlet when they were happy, we can also feel delight when Hamlet recalls his memories with his father. Aesthetic delight can be found in tragic scene also, when Hamlet saw the ghost of his father and had a talk with him.

4) Yes, I felt 'catharsis' in such scenes like:  when Hamlet come to know about his father's murder by  his uncle and mother, when Hamlet is frustrated and he behaves cruelly with Ophelia, In the scene in which Ophelia had gone mad and his brother came, when Hamlet dies.

5) Yes it is very much useful to get the play properly and in right way. At one point it can power up our imagination to get the setting, situations and the mind set of character by his expression.  Audio visuals can effect more than 'Only reading', as we can remember easily what we have seen than what we have read.

6) There are many scenes in the play which are very beautifully directed, but the scene in which Hamlet follows the ghost and the whole conversation is beautifully directed, there is various emotions mingled together, there is delight, terror, revenge, shock and the feeling of hatred in the eyes of Hamlet, and the expression of the ghost and his effective voice, his tone is so effective.

7) A film has beautifully directed, but if i was the director, I would like to change the technique; I would make Hamlet to tell the story with the technique of recalling memories before death, because the movie or play can be more effectively understood by the point of views of Hamlet.

8) In first scene statue suggests the ghost is coming to take revenge, but in last scene it suggests the result of the revenge. So the downfall of empire and king Hamlet is because of the feeling of revenge, as it is said; Eye for an eye make the world blind. Same has happened in the play.

9) We can observe such approaches as the psychological approach and Formalist approach. We can notice in such scenes of play while Hamlet is with his mother and when he is going to take such decision towards his revenge with Claudius, many times he finds his self helpless. In formalist approach, it is all about trapping each other; first victim is king Hamlet, Second is Claudius and third is Hamlet.

10) In the play, Formalist approach appeals me more than any other approach. There is a disturbed world from the first scene, and a vast difference between “seeming” and  “being “ in all the major characters like Claudius, Gertrude, and Hamlet. All are pretending as they are right and good, but all has some kind of Devilish intention on their own perception. There is also a vast difference between “seeing” and “knowing”, Ophelia in his dialogue said: Lord, we know what we are, but we know not what we may be”. There is a question of “know-ability” of characters in play, Gertrude is a mother of Hamlet and still she is not aware with the condition of Hamlet. There are different approaches in different psychological state of mind.


Blog Task - “The Waste Land” by T. S. Eliot




        I have studied “The Waste Land” by T. S. Eliot in my 3rd semester of Post Graduation. Dr. Dilip Barad has given an online task to perform after reading theories of Nietzsche and Freud.



For activity - click here

My response to the blog task:

 For my first response - click here

     After reading my response, my professor has asked me some questions,


Questions from Dr. Dilip Barad –

+Yesha Bhatt : You have expressed very well. The example of Buddha and Buddhism is good one.
Well, don't you consider that Buddha is exactly the Ubermench / super human whose concept Nietzsche talks about. As Nietzsche found it necessary to believe in the concept of "Death of God' so this superhuman quality can be achieved, similarly, Buddha also did not believe in God.
What Eliot believes and tries to get solution is from Buddhism, whereas Nietzsche thinks about Buddha.
Isn't it true that one should be Buddha rather than 'follower' of Buddhism?
Isn't it true that one should be Christ rather than christian?
Isn't is true that one should be Gandhi rather than Gandhian?

Don't you think that someday humans have to grow and come out of cradle to stand on their own feet - someday they shall take responsibilities of their own karma - someday they should be accountable for what so ever good or bad they do? Don't we need cultural or religious shackles because humans are not educated to understand self-discipline? Won't it be a better idea to give free went to human emotions along with sense of responsibility? Isn't it true that we need crutches when we are feeble? If humans are strong enough can't they stand without crutches like upanishads etc? Shall we not be progressive in our outlook and vision?

                                                                                                   
My response –

+Dilip Barad :
Yes Buddha can be considered as Ubermench / super human but as per the mentality of people superhuman or powerful human is God or Avatar of God and as we all know Buddha has a position of God; he has given a message to develop superhuman quality in humans with the power of meditation, But now Buddha has became a leader and Buddhism is a religion which contains followers; the concept “Death of God” cannot be applied by every human in the world so we can say that everyone cannot be superhuman. Eliot believes and tries to get solution from Buddhism because he is aware with the reality of world and Nietzsche thinks about becoming Buddha, which is beyond the capacity of ‘all’ human beings.

The follower of Buddhism will follow Buddha in one or the other way but it depends on the understanding level of humans, It is truth that people should not become followers but as I have mentioned in my answer that all cannot be the superhuman because everyone cannot think differently. If all people will think that they are superhuman and above everything, they will consider themselves as God, and it would harm the world.

Becoming Christ, Buddha or Gandhi is another way of following them, because if people will apply their values and way of living in their life then they will follow them in one or the other way; no one should lose their identity, people can become good enough with their own identity.

Yes, human have to come out of cradle to stand on their own feet, because they are responsible for their happiness and sadness which most of the time depends on their karma, and if people will understand the Karmic philosophy, then only the concept of “Death of God” can be applied in world.

Religion and culture cannot teach self-discipline, but it creates fear of punishment and that is why human have to follow the rules of Society. So its better idea to give free went to human emotions along with sense of responsibility so there will not be any need of fear and shackles, but most of the time human lacks Sense and sense of responsibility.

In 'The Waste Land' Eliot has very well described that how there is moral and spiritual degradation; to come out of the dark well we need rope, so Upanishads are like this rope or crutches when humans are feeble, but after that the responsibility of humans is to walk carefully so we don’t need crutches again.

Obviously we should progressive in our outlook and vision, but to achieve progress we should be aware with our regression and that what Eliot wants to say, that the modern life has became hell so we can say that earlier it was not hell. To achieve that peaceful life back we have to look back and then only we can progress, we cannot find solution in future because it is mystery for us, but we can get solutions from our past and make our future better.


Blog Task - “Biographia Literaria ch - 14” by S. T. Coleridge




        I have studied “Biographia Literaria ch - 14” by S. T. Coleridge in my first semester of Post Graduation. Dr. Dilip Barad has given an online task. 




For full activity - click here

Task
  • Write in your words the difference between poem and prose.
  • Write in your words the difference between poem and poetry.


My response to the blog task:

     1.   Poetry and prose has different method of expressing thoughts, truth and facts. Prose has simple regular and particular way of writing, and as far as poem is concern, it has meter, rhyme and ornamental language. If a writer says something directly or in a prosaic form has different impression than a poet says in a poetic manner. If a writer expressed love in prose is good but the lines “my love is like a red red rose...” is more affective. The second one gives truth with delight while the first one is just related with truth. So the prose has all the qualities but it has slight different and it’s the feeling of delight.

     2. Poem has a different sense than poetry, poem is an output of the thought process of a poet but poetry is a thought process from which the poet passes, when he recalls his experience. And while reading that poetry, when a reader also passes through the same delight, it poem becomes poetry for reader too. Poetry could be a part of a poem but sometimes a whole poem could not be poetry. Poem is a writing which has melody, meter and rhyme, while poetry without any meter and rhyme, could direct be connected with the heart of a poet or reader.