CAESAR REPRESENTATION IN TEXT

Successful people are those who can manipulate their audience’s opinion of truth. Through the composer’s own representation of particular personalities, the responder is enabled to understand conflicts of differing perspectives. The use of visual and literary techniques can unwittingly persuade audiences into taking a particular stance, as can be seen in Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, Jason Reitman’s film, Thank You for Smoking and Kenneth Slessor’s poem, Vesper-Song of the Reverend Samuel Marsden.

Conflicting perspectives in Julius Caesar develop over the assassination of Caesar. The power to win over the Plebeians is found in Mark Antony’s funeral speech as opposed to Brutus’ through his linguistic ability to manipulate their opinion. In Elizabethan times, Julius Caesar the play was a form of entertainment, not a political statement against the monarchy. Shakespeare would have been given the death sentence for depicting the downfall of the Monarchy either way, so it was imperative that all Conspirators that acted against it were punished. In Act one I, Shakespeare has represented the fickleness of the commoners, as Flavius and Marullus see how easily they were swayed from first celebrating Pompey, to celebrating his victorious opponent, Caesar, providing an insight to their impressionable nature for the forthcoming conflicts. A dichotomy between the Conspirators’ covets for a republic, and Antony’s thrust for a Monarchy resulted in conflict and the murder of Caesar. Brutus spoke first at the funeral, demanding the audience listen to him, “Romans… hear me…”

Shakespeare has used irony to highlight Brutus’ underlying desire for control, through his commands, despite claiming to support republicanism; his contradiction highlighting his inner conflict and instability. Speaking in prose, his planned, syllogistic speech lacks exaltation and fails to connect with the people on an emotional level. By having the first say, Brutus has given the commoners the chance to be won over by Antony. Contrasting Brutus, Antony addresses the audience less demandingly with a request; “Friends… lend me your ears.” From the two greetings, the crowd distinguishes Antony as the speaker who cares more for the needs of the Romans. Whereas Brutus tried to reason with the audience, Shakespeare has represented Antony as sly and manipulative. Through the use of praeteritio, Antony subtly convinces the audience that Brutus and the other conspirators had wrongfully murdered Caesar; in “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” Antony makes it sound as though his words were mere truths, that he didn’t intend to lay praise, capturing the hearts of the people further than if he admitted to his admirations. When the crowds proceeded to hunt down the conspirators, it is made clear that the successful speaker was Antony, and proof of his success is found when the mob randomly attack and kill Cinna the Poet, thinking he was Cinna the Conspirator. Through various techniques, Shakespeare’s representation of Antony’s mannerisms and fluid use of rhetoric was what ultimately manipulated the audience to believing Mark’s opinions of Caesar.

Similarly to the dichotomy formed between the republicans and the monarchs in Julius Caesar, conflicting perspectives occur in Reitman’s Thank You for Smoking between the tobacco companies and the non-smoking public and government. In present context, when the movie is set, smoking is seen and advertised to the public as a poison, and it is tobacco industry lobbyist Nick Naylor’s job to defend his company. Thank You for Smoking aims to make more of a political statement than Julius Caesar; as a film, it can reach the wider public and show the effects of smoking legislations from the perspective of the tobacco companies, at a time when smoking legislations are internationally becoming more evident. Naylor is successful in swaying his audiences to his own opinions as the composer has represented him as a confident, intelligent ‘Sultan of Spin’ through various oratory and filmic editing techniques. The first scene opens as an adbreak return on the Joan Lunden Show, where Naylor is a guest speaker, alongside a 15 year-old ex smoking cancer patient, and representatives from various health associations. As Naylor is introduced, the frame freezes as the crowd boos. The scene remains still in time as it diverts to slides of the formation of the Academy of Tobacco studies, as Naylor’s voiceover provides the background information. He proceeds to display smoking related death figures, to emphasize his challenge to win over the non smoking public. The camera returns to a clip of Naylor swooning the press, as his voiceover states “I get paid to talk.” As his head swings from one side to the other, the composer has dubbed in the sound of a machine gun firing, which symbolizes his speaking ability as being a powerful force, possessing the ability to control people and leave a lasting impression. The scene then reverts back to the Joan Lunden show, where Naylor proceeds to use techniques of spin

to manipulate the crowd’s opinions. Before the other panel members can drill him about the effects of smoking on the ‘Cancer Kid’, Naylor begins conversation by flattering the “fine audience” in their concern for the youth of America, winning them over with his 50 million dollar anti-teen smoking campaign, in his claim that there is “Nothing more important than America’s children.” Naylor used sycophancy to precede his speech, just as Antony had in addressing the “gentle Romans”. By using spin to influence the audience opinions, Naylor connects with them on an emotional level, successfully diverting their attention from the issue of smoking in general to the discouragement of teen smoking. Through the composer’s use of techniques, Naylor has been represented as a self-assured orator who parallels the rhetoric of Mark Antony, showing that both men were successful as they were able to manipulate the truth, and have their audiences accept it.

Conflicting perspectives of Reverend Samuel Marsden occur between countries, just as perspectives of Caesar formed between Antony and the Conspirators in Julius Caesar. In Australia in the early 1800s, Marsden was seen as a sadist and a tyrant for his abuse of power in torturing convicts, and his rejection of Aboriginal culture, whereas in New Zealand he was seen as a savior, introducing the ways of Christianity to the islands, and accepting and helping the Maoris. As an Australian, Kenneth Slessor has represented Marsden as a wicked man with a twisted desire to make others suffer; drawing out his darker traits through linguistic techniques and poetic structure in Vesper-Song of the Reverend Samuel Marsden. The poem is written as a Dramatic Monologue from Marsden’s voice, where the responder is able to connect with his thoughts more

intimately and directly. The poem is structured as an Iambic Tetrameter, providing the steady, flowing rhythm of a traditional prayer, whilst it also replicates the regularity and continuity of his whips in motion. As the hand of God, the contradiction in this saintly figure’s violent desires and nonchalance for the convicts makes Marsden seem pitiful in his caricature of himself, enhancing the satire and emphasizing his inner conflict. The metaphor “My cage of Brutes” creates an image of the indifference Marsden feels, in viewing these men as animals and low-lives, suggesting his feelings of superiority and power over them. The capitalization of “Hand” in “Not mine, the Hand that writes the weal” suggests its importance, and represents God- Marsden is suggesting that God is controlling his hand, and that he is performing God’s will by torturing these men for their redemption. Both Brutus and Marsden feel the need to justify themselves and their actions, making them both appear unstable in their inner conflicts. Slessor’s representation of Samuel Marsden parallels Shakespeare’s representation of Brutus, as inner conflict is seen in both protagonists, restricting their ability to be admired. Slessor’s Australian-influenced representation of Marsden’s inner conflicts has resulted in his success as a composer. Through various techniques in Vesper-Song of the Reverend Samuel Marsden, he has been able to manipulate his audience; the New Zealand perspective of Marsden would be thereafter tainted due to Slessor’s ability to influence his audience to his own perspective on the truth of Marsden. Such an effect also occurred on Brutus- Caesar’s representation of Antony as a success left little room for Brutus to be praised, showing that it is the successful people who are able to manipulate their audiences.

Through analysis of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Jason Reitman’s Thank You for Smoking and Kenneth Slessor’s Vesper-Song of the Reverend Samuel Marsden, it can be deduced that a composer’s representation of different personalities can result in conflicting perspectives to occur, but in all texts, the successful person is the one who can manipulate their audience’s opinions of truth to follow their own perspective- whether that person be the composer himself or a character within the text. In all three texts, various techniques have been able to distinguish that Antony, Naylor and Slessor have been the successful people in winning over their audiences, whereas Brutus, The nonsmoking public and the New Zealand view of Marsden (respectively) have been established as unsuccessful as they have lacked in the tools and techniques which equate with successful audience manipulation.