Phantom of the Paradise

Phantom of the Paradise is a cult musical of the 1970s with peculiar traits of movies and music. This is the mix of such plots as “The Phantom of the Opera,” “Faust,” and even “The Picture of Dorian Gray” enriched by electronic glam-rock of the 1970s. The movie tells the story of a talented but naïve musician whose work is stolen by a producer who sold his soul to the Devil.

Brian De Palma made the only musical in his career and succeeded as his production became a cult movie for several generations. He took the plot, the music, and created something bolder, more dynamic, and more emotional than those would be taken separately. He presents opera to the audience in the style of that time making in appealing to the audience. The theatrical quality of the music is accepted as a single unit rather than a set of singles. In the course of actions, music lives its life, it is born, it grows, it develops, it changes, it conquers mind.

In the movie, music is a kind of litmus paper that reveals the true nature of people. In order to write and finish his piece of audio art, Winslow Leach talented composer, as a person who will use any opportunity to make his music a facetted diamond. To win back his opera, he is ready to break any rules, even to dare to kill a person. Swan, a deceptive producer, is already a negative personage as he sold his soul to Devil. But why? For music to become the core of his life and well-being. Despite his baby face, this person can seal the agreement with blood and then break this agreement mesmerized by the magnitude of the music. Phoenix, Phantom’s beloved, makes a poor dialogue with her dignity placing her career in front of everything. She sees herself only tied with music and agrees on wedding with Swan seduced by stardom.

The sense of time is tracked in Swans intentions about the music. By any means, he wants to have this music but he wants to change it into the manner that would give the best profit. This means that music has to change and become pop drivel. In addition, instead of opera house, the action takes place in a rock club of the 70s. Another point depicted in the plot comes from the “music struggles” so common back in the 70s. Some artists suffered from bad contracts, in the search of fame singers substantially changed their image, and a greedy producer was not an invention of De Palma as well. These topics are reflected in the movie and state the cross-section of the music industry.

Pennies from Heaven

Pennies from Heaven by Dennis Potter is an adaptation of the BBC series that moves the scene from London to Chicago at the time of the Great Depression. The time of hardships evolved into the plot of hardships with all means of depression. A sheet-music salesman Arthur Parker is not doing well with both his business and wife. His dream is to become rich and have a life of those people involved in music industry. His wife does not support him and refuses to give money to start business. Parker meets a school teacher, Eileen, who also feels that she does not belong to the life that she has. They faced numerous problems only to be left with nothing; and in the case of Parker without life as well.

Music in the movie as another reality, a better world, that Arthur and Eileen desperately seek. The main theme of the movie is how popular songs designed the mind of people living in the environment of economic and emotional deficit. The main songs are their dreams where they escape and live the life of joy. When the characters encounter another problem one by one, all they can do is to escape into their fake jolly world. When a bank manager refuses to give Arthur a loan, the musical daydreaming sings “Yes, Yes, My Baby Said Yes, Yes.” And in a moment of dopy passion, Arthur bursts into “I’ll Never Have to Dream Again.”

The striking contrast of the characters highlights the power of music. Eileen, being a shy modestly-dressed teacher, has classes in front of naughty children at a few rows of desks. However, in her “music dreams,” she has a long sparkling silver dress as she conducts her students like an orchestra. She dances frivolously and relaxed, children wear off-white outfits and obey her, and her little orchestra students are sitting at rows of white pianos instead of dull desks. This contrast shows despair and hope, life and living, reality and dreams that will never come true.

The point of escapism that cuts the movie into two independent plots is performed with the help of music. Music is the measure of happiness. Even when Arthur is ready to die, he imagines their last dance to the music as something they deserve after having walked a long life of hardships. If the movie was all the way like this bright world, the audience would accept it ending in better box-office return. However, the order and consistency of a Broadway musical with chorus girls, men who sing and dance, and even cute toddlers around pianos framed with Art Deco style cannot outweigh the heavy load of the reality of the Great Depression. The movie combines both the historical insights into the 1930s where all the odds were possible in order to survive and the Broadway musical style of the dream worlds of characters denying the tragic reality.

Across the Universe

And finally, the latest of the three musicals is Across the Universe by Julie Taymor. In this movie, the songs by The Beatles are real songs that bear the value of the 1960s. This was the time of anti-war protests, struggle for civil rights and freedom of speech, and rock and roll. All these defining factors are highlighted by the songs of The Beatles. Just like other two stories, Across the Universe has a set of unique traits with music being an integral part of the plot.

The story about love and peace is highlighted by sorrow and war. The fact that more than thirty original songs by The Beatles were used in the movie places music at a front line by default. The happy, colorful, and carefree life of the hippies is interrupted by the news that war in Vietnam affects the American society. This changes the world upside down with all the consequences. What was colorful becomes dull in the colors of flashes of war and monoсhromaticism of protests. Where was love, one finds an empty flat. Where was peace and joy, no signs of delight remain.

The number of songs puts a question: was the plot tailored to a number of songs of particular content or The Beatles wrote so many songs that they could fit any plot of the film. The answer is neither the first nor the second. This makes the songs twice as valuable. In this movie, the music is the legacy of time – that time that became the basis of the plot. That is why all songs back up the events throughout the story. Joho leaves home to move to New York with the song “Come Together.” The character named Prudence one way or another had to be in the movie as The Beatles have a song “Dear Prudence” as well as Jude for “Hey Jude.” When relationship is over, it is time for “Oh! Darling” and “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.” As this was a time of mental games with drugs, some songs like “Happiness Is a Warm Gun” appear. War and protests are two other faces of that time. They are represented in the movie by such songs as “Across the Universe” and as heavy as heavy metal “Helter Skelter.”

Conclusion

The three selected movies chose music to be the basis of the plot ruled by this art. In Phantom of the Paradise, the main characters progressed and acted driven by the need to be attached to music. Pennies from Heaven created the luxurious escape dreamland full of music that denied the total life failure by the time of the Great Depression. Lastly, Across the Universe united the songs of The Beatles into one telling story of that time with lyrics of songs being as meaningful as the play of the characters.

According to T.S. Eliot, one of the most important aspect of Hamlet’s character throughout the play is his inability to externalize his feelings and to find an objective relation for them in the world as a whole. Eliot writes: “Hamlet the man is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear…he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains to poison life and to obstruct action” (1999, 145). This feeling is, in some sense, a feeling of guilt over his own position within his family, his inability to honour his father’s name and his disgust over what he considers to be his mother’s disgusting actions in marrying again so soon after her husband’s death. That Hamlet remains is fixated on this sense of guilt and that he is unable to move past it is illustrated in the scene of the play and in his first soliloquy. In this speech he clearly expresses melancholy and a sense that the world around him is irredeemably damaged for him; ‘O! That this too too solid flesh would melt, / Thaw and resolve itself into a dew; / Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d / His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter! O God! God! / How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world” (I.II.127-133). Indeed it can be argued that the opening scene of the play represents a situation in which Hamlet has effectively projected the guilt that he feels, and that he feels both his mother and his uncle also bear, on to the whole of nature around him. However, as Eliot notes, he is unable to find any particular object within this general malaise that would enable him to objectify his guilt and to deal with it.

This capacity for projection is evident throughout the play, and especially within Hamlet’s own discussions of nature and the manner in which the world appears to him. This is especially reflected in his speech to Rosencranzt and Guildenstern in which he remarks: “I have, of late – but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all customs of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame the earth seems to me a sterile promontory” (II.II.311-312). This suggestion of sterility goes hand in hand with the melancholy that Hamlet feels throughout the play, and in this sense it be directly related to the suggestion that Hamlet is projecting his own guilt outwards onto the whole of nature. Various interpretations of versions of Hamlet often play with this idea of a guilty and rank nature. One striking way in which this occurs in Kennth Branagh’s 1996. Here Branagh makes extensive use of mirrors in Act 3 Scene 1 in order to suggest Hamlet’s own narcissism and inability to relate to anything outside of his own sense of guilt.

This idea of a total guilt in the progtagonist and the world can be made more clear if one considers the play as a tragedy. According to Aristotle, such a genre should be understood as one in which characters are fundamentally caught up within a web of events over which they are unable to exert full control and which, as a result, bring about their downfall. He writes: “Character comes in as contributing to the action. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of the tragedy, and the end the chef thing overall. Without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be one without character…The plot…is the first principle” (1996, 20). According to this understanding of tragedy, then it is never possible for a particular character to fully understand or to forsee the consequences of their actions at the time in which they make them, rather the meaning of this actions comes about as a result of the actions that befall these characters, which in themselves reveal the fate that the characters are beholden to.

This emphasis on plot over and above character can also be used to consider the role that guilt plays within “Hamlet.” Indeed, there are key moments in the pay in which the idea of guilt, indeed of a guilt that cannot possibly be fulfilled or removed, plays a key role in the plot. Arguably the most clear example of this comes in the moment in which Hamlet chooses not to kill Claudius, even he clearly has the opportunity to do so, and any particular suspicions that he might have had with regard to the truth of the ghost’s words should have been removed by his reaction to watching the performance of “The Mouse Trap” in which Hamlet has enacted his father’s murder. Despite this opportunity, however, Hamlet does not go through with his task. Rather, he uses the excuse that Claudius is praying and that, were he to be killed now then he would get straight to heaven, thus removing any possible vengeance that Hamlet would actually be able to enact for his father.

Hamlet’s baulks at this idea and states: “Now I might do it that, now he is praying; / And now I’ll do it: and so he goes to heaven; / And so I am reveng’d. The would be scann’d: / A villain kills my father; and for that, / I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven” (III.III.72-77). While the logic of this argument can be argued to make a degree of sense, it is also important to note that it has a similar logic to Hamlet’s inability to objectify his will in the world. Hamlet does not spare Claudius because he is not guilty enough to justify his murder. Rather, he spares him because he is actually too guilty to justify being murdered at that particular moment. In this scene, therefore, which is one of the most important for the overall plot of the play, an actual sense of overriding guilt and a need for retribution can be shown to be effectively detached from its object. Were Hamlet to be simply convinced of Claudius’ guilt in a normal sense then he would almost certainly have simply killed him and the tragedy of the play overall would have been averted. Indeed, it is because he is only able to relate to the world as being absolutely and completely guilty, and, as such, cannot even take obvious steps to rectify this, that the play ultimately culminates in a tragedy.

In conclusion, therefore, it is possible to see the importance of guilt emerging in “Hamlet” as emerging in two main areas. First of all, it is crucial for understanding the character of Hamlet himself who is obsessed with a particular sense of guilt possessed by both him and the world in which he lives. This guilt is one that can be clearly seen in Hamlet’s inability to act on particular objects in order to fulfil a task. At the same time, guilt itself plays a crucial role in the plot of the play and in its tragic structure. It is only by taking these two together that one may fully appreciate the significance of the idea and reality of guilt for “Hamlet.”

Works Cited

William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. By Kenneth Branagh and Patrick Doyle. Prod. David Barron. Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Julie Christie, and Derek Jacobi. Columbia Pictures, 1996.

Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Joe Sachs. Penguin: London, 1996. Print.

Eliot. T.S. “Hamlet.” Selected Essays. Faber & Faber: London, 1999. pp. 141-146. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Ann Thompson. London: Arden, 2005. Print.

In the analysis of Antigone, one observes that there are political overtones when Creon declares that there is no mourning whatsoever for Polynices, Antigone’s brother. At this point, Sophocles wants to show that there is more power rather than blood. He emphasizes that the people represent a true power. The notion of a curse in the city causes people to ask Creon to free Antigone to save them. Although Creon feels like he has the last say, he has no choice but to abide by the demands of the people. According to Robert (16), the decision to free Antigone confirms Sophocles’ view about how the city is above one person even if it is the king.

The conflict in Antigone revolves around the distinction between the law and justice. To understand the political stand of Sophocles, it is important to analyze the cause of conflict of interest. Creon accuses Polynices was accused of killing his brother Etocles as well as going against the state. As such, Creon the king denied him a proper burial according to the provision of the law. However, Antigone the sister to Polynices wants to act according to her principle and religious stand by giving Polynices a good send off. Burying her brother motivates Antigone even if it means costing her life. According to his political belief, Creon was right because Polynices had gone against the law (Sophocles 9). However, religion defies political correctness and instead advocates for moral obligation.

There is a complex rift between Antigone and Creon in regards to personal relationship and leadership. There seems to be an antagonizing relationship between Haemon and Creon. The fact that Creon feels powerful, he refuses to pay attention to the seer’s revelation about giving Polynices a proper burial. Consequently, the city is set to suffer because of Creon’s stubbornness to abide by the seer’s words (Sophocles 13). Creon emerges as a stiff tyrant who does not listen to the people yet, Oedipus did the same mistake. Finally, Creon has to make decisions that are in favor of the people rather that focusing on his pride.

In the play, Oedipus the king, Sophocles advocates for a rational ruling that sees the danger of religious passion to political life. In essence, Sophocles argues that divine law will supersede human law because human are not always right. Sophocles also explores the theme of personal freedom and obligations to show that democracy can work. While Creon Advocates for the total obedience of man-made laws, Sophocles stresses on the importance of higher laws of duty to one’s family and to the gods. Therefore, Sophocles believes that the state laws are not reliable because there can be a justification of civil obedience (Sophocles 21). In Sophocles, The Antigone, one pays attention to the interaction between religion and politics. In this case, the will of the humans often goes against the truths of the gods. Therefore, Sophocles stands for people acting from their individual will as opposed from tyrannical influence.

In Oedipus the King, Sophocles tries to show that the welfare of the state surpasses any one individual. Oedipus tries to demonstrate his fairness by stating that, ‘’But my spirit grieves for the city, for me and all of you to learn what I might do or say to save our city’’ (Sophocles 75-84). However, Oedipus fairness and greatness as a ruler do not stop him from revealing the identity of his past. Oedipus’s past makes him a plague to the city. As a result, he asks Creon to drive him from the city to save everyone else. Sophocles is trying to show that a great leader can make a selfless decision now based on the bad things he did in the past. Based on someone’s mistakes, it is safe if leadership does not center on one individual but the on the people’s say. When Antigone refused and went to bury her brother, she felt obliged to her divine power. As such, Sophocles is trying to demonstrate that even leaders can be in a position to abide by the divine law whenever the need arises.

Sophocles also demonstrates that being politically correct is also about being just. In Oedipus the Colonus, Thesus is able to save his city by keeping his promise to protect Oedipus. Once again, Sophocles emphasizes the need of a leader to consider the interests of the citizens. Additionally, this play also reflects on Sophocles showing that war is not always the answer (Sophocles 380). Sometimes in politics, democracy is less likely to brew war. According to Sophocles, a good political stand is one that promotes saving lives other than killing.

Throughout Antigone, demonstrates the distinction between politics and human law. According to Sophocles, no matter how powerful humans think they are, there will always be a connection with the law of the Gods. For instance, Creon in Antigone disobeys divine law only for him to suffer the death of his wife and son. However, this political stand is not a justification in the eyes of the gods. The repercussions were clear when he lost both his wife and son.

Sophocles sheds light on whether leadership should strive to govern the political society through the light of human reason, or through religious faith. An examination of the Oedipus the tyrant, Antigone and Oedipus at the Colonus reflects on Sophocles as a genuine philosophical thinker (Robert 56). Sophocles seems to oppose political rationalism that goes against religion and personal principles. While Sophocles Antigone has many interpretations, the main argument is that a sober and cautious political rationalism is important in making leadership decisions.

In conclusion, Sophocles in Antigone emphasizes the need of human beings to strike a balance between the need to obey the will of the gods and truths of men. By examining the plays, Sophocles is trying to share the importance of democracy. Ruling a country is a difficult task that requires both citizens and leaders to contribute. According to the plays, it is easy for an individual to make bad decisions based on their political stand. However, once one considers the goodness of the people, it does away with political tyranny. Conversely, the death of Antigone raises some questions. The significance of her death shows that obeying the law is equally important. Perhaps, Sophocles is trying to demonstrate that both divine and political powers are good. However, one should recognize where to strike a balance because both political and divine powers define human social existence. Moreover, a leader’s rule is dependent on the need to protect the people as opposed to self-interests.

Works Cited

Robert, F. The Three Theban Plays (Penguin Classics). hardcover. 2008.

Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays: Antigone; Oedipus the King; Oedipus at Colonus. Penguin Classics. PAPERBACK. Penguin Classics. 1984.

Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays. Penguin Classics. Literature/drama. Penguin publishers. 1984.