Compare the ways in which The Crucible and The Dressmaker portray leadership PDF

Preview

Summary

Compare the ways in which The Crucible and The Dressmaker portray divided societies...

Description

KEW HIGH SCHOOL- EAL- UNIT 4 Area of Study 1 PRACTICE SAC Outcome 1: Produce a detailed comparison which analyses how two selected texts present ideas, issues and themes.

Task: Using specific examples from the novel The Dressmaker and the play The Crucible, write a comparative essay on ONE of the following topics.

1. ‘Individuals must conform to social expectations’. How does The Crucible and The Dressmaker explore this idea? OR 2. How does The Dressmaker and The Crucible demonstrate the importance of leadership? - Leaders are misguided in + parris: self interest + Evan Pettyman: cordiality - Ideology – fragility of the court system, fuelled by hysteria + danforth: binary thinking + five legged dragon + the oval eye : stigmatise of the townspeople - True leadership, overcome perception: + hale: come to proctor house by himself +Farrat: admit the town’s love for outcast

Advice/Details: Write a comparative essay of approximately 800 -1,000 words. 60 marks are available for this SAC. Focus on the differences and similarities between the two texts. Investigate: characters, themes, plots, settings, construction of texts (language choices). o Be sure to include quotations and specific examples from both texts in your essay.

o o o o

o You have the double period to complete the task. o You are permitted a dictionary

Respectively set in 1950s Australian township of Dungatar and 1690s American theocratic society, Rosalie Ham’s The Dressmaker and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible both explore the significance of leadership within the insular society of Salem. It is punctuated through the hypocritical portrayals of leader figures which therefore misguides the prevalent hysteria in the towns. However, while most leaders are misguided, both authors do not disregard those who overcome their perception and exhibit their true leadership based on their sense of moral integrity.

By exposing the hypocritical nature of authoritative figures, both Ham and Miller fortify the notion that leaders are misguided by their self-interest. It is through the characterization of leaders such as Evan Pettyman and Reverend Parris that demonstrate decaying and corrupted leadership of both towns. As an exemplification, Miller’s portrayal of Parris, who is “evidently prayer” from the outset contradicts with his title of “Reverend” as a religious leader, highlighting his hypocrisy and pretense. In fearing that “they will howl him out of Salem for such a corruption in his house”, Miller elucidates his priority for reputation rather the well-being of his daughter as well as the town. Herein, the playwright insinuates the discontentment of the townspeople towards him, further alluding to the leadership of 1950s American McCarthyism. In the same way, Ham portrays Evan Pettyman as a man “who touched women” whose perverse behaviour leads people “turn their back when they saw him”. Indeed, Evan represents a deviation from the town’s expected norms whose authoritative power enables him to buy cordiality from the townspeople, forcing them to be “polite” despite their distrust towards him. Therein, through how Evan is superficially accepted, Ham relays her denouncement of a corrupt figure who abuses his power to explicitly escape over punishment and gain his self-benefits. Thus, both Miller and Ham explicate the extents to which authoritative leaders exploit their power to shirk responsibility in order to achieve their own interests. Being by-products of misguided leadership in parochial societies, both towns stigmatize the flaws of outcasts. In both texts, the hatred and anguish towards ostracized individual is expounded through Danforth’s binary thinking and the reunion of the townspeople against Tilly Dunnage. To establish the conservative nature in Salem, Miller epitomizes Danforth’s absolutism through his insistence, “an individual is either with the court or against it”, highlighting the distinction between good and evil in the society as it leaves “in-between” individuals like John Proctor no room to forgive himself. Herein, the playwright explicates the inherent flaws of Salem’s governance, depicting the narrow-minded of the court as well as the unforgiving nature towards outcasts like Proctor. In referring to this, Miller bolsters the notion that the governments are beyond reproach, foreshadowing that “the power of

theocracy [will be] broken”. From the outset of The Dressmaker, it is “the thin gravel that ran to the football oval” that signifies the social division within the community. However, the physical connection of the football oval showcases that they reunite as they share same love for football. Therein, “the green eye of the oval [which] looked back at Tilly” symbolizes the towns’ hatred and animosity towards Tilly as she is thought to be a murderer. Associating their revulsion with the football eyes, Ham deliberately heightens the malicious nature of the town as they somehow find ostracizing outsiders as enjoyment. It also represents the way in which ostracized individuals are drowned in the perception and their past flaws by the toxic ideology, regardless their change and progression. Thus, through the treatment of Dungatar towards outcasts and the flawed thinking of Danforth, who represents the authority in Salem, both Miller and Ham affirm their disapprobation towards the leadership of both towns. However, both texts present the endorsement of true leadership as Miller and Ham portray the ability of unexpected and moral leaders to overcome their perception by logic and rationality. It is exemplified through the bravodo of aristocratic figureheads such as Sergeant Farrat who admits and sympathises for outcasts like Tilly and Teddy or Reverend Hale who transforms in the middle of the play. Miller advocates the bravery of those who “have blood in their head” to step outside their boundary and challenge Salem’s theocratic ideology through Hale’s transformation. Hale transforms from a devoted reverend whose belief is seemingly unshakable, insisting that “court is just” to a man who comes to Proctor’s house “without the court’s authority”. Hale’s personal growth throughout the play is the turning point for a society that is ripe for destruction and the justice system that is legally and morally weak. This signifies the downfall of theocracy that governs Salem, challenging the townsfolks to question its absurdity and perils that results from hysteria and deceit. Likewise, Ham characterizes Sergeant Farrat, a microcosm of those who are willing to change their mindset. At Teddy’s funeral, Farrat particularly comes to deeply regret his pivotal role in excluding Tilly from the town and argues that “if [Dungatar] had included her, Teddy would have always been” with the town. Here, Farrat’s act is the climax of the novel which prompts the townspeople to realise the malicious and systematic ostracization and fuels the desire for revenge in Tilly. Indeed, the power of true leadership impact significantly to the plots both texts which releases the townspeople from social fetter.

To conclude, both Miller’s allegorical play “The Crucible” and Ham’s gothic novel “The Dressmaker” provide audience a profound insight into the influence of corrupted authoritative system on inferior individuals whilst enables the superior officials to selfempower. Towards the end, Miller however more focuses on the flaws and irrationality of the government as this play written as a sardonic allegory of 1950s McCarthysm while Ham focuses on the moral value and human rights within the society. Hence, both authors simultaneously criticize the inherently corrupted leadership in both communities which result in immense endurance of outcasts and formation of conservative ideology....