In House of Cards, are the female characters only presented as victims of Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power?

Throughout Frank Underwood’s rise in power, many of the female characters are presented as suffering and as manipulated victims. His ruthless pragmatism and almost inhuman indifference allows him to suppress anyone who stands in his way. Characters such as Heather Dunbar, Rachel Posner and Claire Underwood- to varying extents- suffer attacks on their dignity, power and livelihood. However, there are occurrences throughout the series where these female characters defy what Frank expects of them, thus becoming strong, independent and stoic characters as a result. 

Note, this analysis only considers Seasons 1-3. I have not yet watched the fourth season in its entirety.

Some may argue that Heather Dunbar is presented as a victim of Frank’s ruthlessness as he attempts to sustain his power and the presidency. During her first debate, she is forced to endure sly and cunning personal attacks, from both Frank and Jackie Sharp, as they use her gender as a weapon. They try to portray her as a “bad mother” who abandons her children, and even as a “sexist” who only looks after herself, rather than the whole of America’s female population. This assault on her character increases in intensity when they try to use her actions in the past, such as sending her children to public school or her lack of a “record to defend”, in order to diminish her credibility and humiliate her. To some extent, it does appear that this attack on her character and her past victimises her, for she loses the first caucus in Iowa, thus suggesting that her public image has decreased in popularity. However, to a greater extent, it appears that Dunbar is actually Frank’s strongest obstacle in his pursuit of the presidency, and perhaps one of the most powerful female character in this television series. Throughout the third season, Frank “trails” behind her in the polls. Rather than someone victimised by Frank’s ruthlessness, Dunbar is portrayed as a formidable opponent that Frank struggles to overcome. Even when he humiliates her during the debate, labelling her a “bad mother”, she swiftly responds in an calm and human way “do I want the best for my kids? Yes I do!” Frank’s attempts to humiliate her are quickly halted by her strong and defiant demeanour as she refuses to fall to his depraved level of politics. Thus, it appears that not all female characters are presented as victims of Frank’s pursuit of power. Dunbar, a “symbol” for the power that women can have in politics, proves to be one of the strongest and most controlled characters in the series, and certainly a very worthy candidate for president that Frank will struggle to defeat in the later seasons.

Rachel Posner is portrayed as a greater of a victim of Frank’s ruthless pursuit of power. During the first season, she is essentially a pawn which Frank uses to progress through his plan to the vice-presidency. Her value never increases above this- Frank does not even meet her due to her lack of significance to him. Yet he still does what he pleases with her, using Doug to take complete control of her life. She is paid to keep silent about her sexual encounter with Peter Russo, and then to seduce him later in the season. Each time Frank needs her silenced with regards to what she knows, she is forced to “move again”, despite her pleas that she has “finally made a life for myself”. Furthermore, during her last appearance in the series structurally, she is presented as utterly humiliated and powerless. She is kidnapped by Doug- bound and gagged by a rope which appears to symbolise the oppressing constraints of Frank’s power. She is even forced to urinate all over herself “back there” in the van, which is incredibly degrading and suggests she is considered as below human by both Doug and Frank. She is repeatedly told to never “overestimate yourself”, as it steadily becomes clear for the audience that she is a victim of Frank’s abusive manipulation of her. Whilst some may argue that many of her actions suggest she is not victimised by Frank, such as the way she overcomes and escapes Doug, or the way she creates a new identity for herself as Cassie Lockhart off-screen, it is clear that all of this is meaningless. Many consider her storyline with Doug to be extra-baggage and unimportant, which is entirely the point. Other than being a minor hindrance to Doug, she is never allowed to accomplish anything substantial. As the series progresses beyond season four and beyond, her horrific, unfortunate and untimely death will steadily be forgotten by the other characters. Other than as a puppet for Frank to use in his pursuit of power, she serves no purpose. She dies as an unfortunate victim of his manipulation.

Nevertheless, women are not presented only as victims in Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power, for Claire Underwood could be interpreted as one of the most influential and powerful characters in the entire series. Her impact on other character’s decisions is incredibly substantial. For many voters in this fictionalised version of America, she is the only reason that people vote for Frank in the first place- “people like Claire”, and are persuaded to vote by what she says. During the third season, Claire even acknowledges this fact “I should have never made you president”. The use of the word “made” offers a lot of insight into the amount of power she has, for it suggests that Frank would have achieved nothing without the authority she has in this corrupt world of politics. Furthermore, her role as CEO of Clean Water Initiative would have proven very effective in getting the environmental bill to pass through Congress, if she actually decided to used her high-ranking position. She chooses not to though, and this causes a lot of delay in Frank’s pursuit of the presidency. Thus, it appears that Claire Underwood is a character who makes a substantial impact, someone who is certainly not victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power. However, a much deeper reading suggests that her authority within the show is superficial- an illusion that never becomes a reality. Ironically, as Claire becomes First Lady of the United States, she finally comes to realise that every bit of control she had over her life has been manipulated by Frank. Her business, her influence on voters and even her role as First Lady have all been for his benefit- not hers. President Petrov even observes that Frank simply “pimps” Claire out; every action she takes in the show contributes to Frank’s plans, rather than for her own benefit. Dunbar manages to get the role of solicitor general and builds a successful campaign for president alone, but Claire has nothing unless Frank gets it also. He oppressively tells her that “without me you are nothing”, suggesting how any power she had has been completely usurped and absorbed by Frank. Now she is victimised by him, feeling utterly “weak and small”. Whilst it could be argued that she is portrayed as one of the most commanding and authoritative characters in the series, her influence in events is presented as much more superficial than it is genuine. In fact, many argue that she is presented as being the most victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power, and his lack of respect for her as a person.

The female characters in this series could considered strong, defiant and powerful in the face of Frank’s ruthless pragmatism. Many of the women in this series fight for what they want and what they believe in, such as their own life, or to progress further up the political ladder. However, it soon becomes clear that this battle against Frank is often fruitless. Women are unfortunately presented as victimised by, and suffering from, Frank’s merciless desire to become the president. Often their own plans and goals are ravaged, exploited and ruined because Frank’s ambitions always come first throughout the entire show. Whilst there are occurrences where it appears that women are triumphant in their own aspirations despite Frank’s plans, it soon becomes clear that it is always the protagonist who succeeds in what they set out to do, and that women are often left victimised as a result.

Explore some of the ways in which Mary Shelley uses different settings to contribute to the gothic effects of the novel

Shelley uses settings to create many gothic effects for the reader, such as isolation, horror and a dark insight into the human psyche. However, there are often more effective narrative methods that Shelley uses to create the gothic tone of the novel, such as structure and characterisation.

  Shelley appears to use the Orkney Islands to evoke a sense of gothic alienation. The use of the superlative “remotest” connotes how this is the most isolated place that Victor can reside in; there is nowhere more “vacant” and empty. The setting is “barren” and lifeless, as well as the perfect place for Victor to create the female creature in “solitude”. This “remote spot” appears to have been used to evoke a gothic sense of isolation for the reader. It really emphasises how removed from society Victor has become- he is utterly “alone” on this island. However, Shelley’s use of structure proves to be more effective at creating this gothic tone of the novel. This novel is told in a framed narrative; Victor’s narration is being told to Walton rather than narrated to the reader directly. This more effective at creating this sense of isolation about Victor because we are distanced from him. Everything he tells us is filtered through the character we are structurally closest with: Walton. Furthermore, Victor never replies to the letters from his “dearest Elizabeth”, which highlights how alienated this character is from his own family. Whilst settings are used to create the gothic effect of isolation and alienation, it is clear that the use of the novel’s structure is more effective.

  Pathetic fallacy may have been used to evoke a sense of horror and misery from the reader. When Frankenstein’s creature comes to life, the weather appears to reflect the atrocity of his crime. The setting is described as a “dreary night”, and the rain “pattered dismally”. This lexicalisation of synonyms of misery and depression serves to emphasise the horror of what Frankenstein has done. His laboratory is shrouded in darkness- “half-extinguished light”, “candle was nearly burnt out”- as well as this melancholic use of weather. The setting appears to reflect how an 1800s reader may have interpreted Victor’s creation: a monstrous and sacrilegious act against God. The darkness and the despairing weather appear to symbolise the horrifying nature of his arrogance as he tries to become a divine figure: “a new species will bless me as its creator”. It may have been received as an utterly abhorrent usurpation of God’s by a reader in the 1800s, and the setting may be a catalyst for these gothic effects. However, a much more effective narrative method for creating horror is Victor’s characterisation. He describes his creation as a “catastrophe” which suggests that it is completely wrong and should never have happened. He is presented as filled with “disgust” and “breathless horror”, as well as completely repulsed by what he has done. Shelley appears to be using Victor’s role as narrator to evoke a sense of horror from the reader. His point of view is that this is a “horrid” abomination, and we as readers may be influenced by his perception because it is through his eyes that we see the novel. Thus, the use of Victor’s characterisation proves to be a more effective source of horror and despair than the use of setting.

  In fact, natural settings in Frankenstein are most effective at creating romantic effects in the novel, rather than a gothic tone. Shelley presents nature as romantically sublime, after possibly being influenced by the romantics, who were her contemporaries. Natural settings have many positive and beneficial effects on the narrator: it “elevated my spirits”; “greatest consolation” and subdued his pain. Nature is presented as a source of relief and treatment in this novel. It is presented as healing and soothing, which is the antithesis of what is considered to be a gothic effect. It “tranquilised” pain rather than provoke more horror and despair. Whilst some may argue that the “terrific” and “violent” weather, apparent when Victor first meets the Creature, may symbolise the darkness and turbulence of his psyche, this is not the primary use of nature. Shelley appears to use natural settings in this novel to contribute to a sense of sublime beauty and the healing powers of our world, rather than to reflect the horrifying and gothic aspects of our psyche.

  Whilst it does appear that Shelley uses settings to create a gothic tone to her novel, developing many of the gothic themes such as isolation, horror and the darkness of the human psyche, setting is not the most effective method Shelley uses to evoke these effects. Often, narrative devices such as characterisation and the novel’s structure appear to be much more successful at contributing to the gothic effects of her classic novel.

“Gothic writing warns of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations”. How far does your reading of gothic writing support this view?

Throughout gothic writing, there are many protagonists who are presented as extremely ambitious; they are characters who aspire beyond the limitations imposed upon them by society and religion. Often, they appear to succeed. They appear to achieve their aims, which could interpreted as an encouragement of such behaviour. However, by the end of each text, it becomes clear that success does not follow their aspirations. In many cases, they are punished for revolting against their restraints, which would lead to the interpretation that gothic writing warns against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations.

   In The Pardoner’s Tale, the eponymous protagonist is presented as aspiring beyond his limitations within the Church system so that he can satiate his extreme greed. Throughout the entire tale, he portrays himself and his role as more important than it actually is: “myn heigh power”; “suffisant pardoner”. He even tells his audience that it is an “honour” to have him there, which connotes how he has elevated his sense of self-worth and importance within the Church. The Pardoner in this text aspires beyond the limitations imposed by the role, as he arrogantly believes he has the “auctoritee” to absolve people of their sins for his own “covetise”. Initially, it appears Chaucer is warning against the Pardoner’s ambitious nature, and highlighting the dangers of what he does to break his limitations. At the end of poem, the Host challenges the Pardoner’s hypocrisy and even threatens to “kutte of” parts of his body. This attack causes the Pardoner to lose his voice- “answerde nat a word”; “no word ne wolde he seye”- which is arguably the most powerful tool he has in the manipulation of his audience. For him to lose his voice, which he has been using to extort money from the “lewed” audience, could be considered a loss of his absolute power, and even a punishment for his actions. Thus, it could be interpreted that Chaucer is warning against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations, for it appears that the Pardoner receives his comeuppance for his aspirations.

   However, a much greater interpretation connotes that the Pardoner is not punished at all. Due to the Knight’s intervention, the Host stops challenging the Pardoner. They “kiste” and ignored what just happened, presumably carrying on as normal as they “riden forth hir weye” towards Canterbury. The Pardoner’s extreme “avarice”, and desire to satiate his “covetise”, appears to have gone unpunished. The only person to challenge him, and bring him some form of retribution, is silenced by the Knight. Thus, it could be argued that Chaucer is not warning of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations- the Pardoner lives on without any penalties, despite doing so. Rather, it appears that Chaucer may actually be reflecting a deteriorating and fallen world. He appears to be satirically highlighting the corruption of the Catholic Church: an inverted religious institution where a desire to “winne” is more important than the “correccion of sinne”, as well as one where no one is willing to challenge the corruption that is so prevalent in society.

  Lady Macbeth is presented as having greater ambitions than the Pardoner when she aspires beyond the societal limitations of a woman in the Jacobean era. She seeks to defy the authority of God as she attempts to change everything which makes her human: “stop up… access to remorse”; “fill me… of direst cruelty”. This is a character who appears unable to accept her humanity, rejecting it in favour of "gall" and evil. Rather than abide by God’s authority and accept who she is, she aspires beyond that. She wants to connect with the “murdering ministers” and lose any human emotion which may affect the ruthless pragmatism she uses to plot Duncan’s murder. Initially, she appears to succeed in doing so, which would allow one to argue that Shakespeare is encouraging her ambitious nature. Before the act of regicide, she is able to use her powerful influence to control Macbeth. Once he was “strong against the deed”, but after being manipulated by his wife, it is clear he has become “settled” on murdering him. Her aspirations appear to have been rewarded in this scene. Aspiring to completely reject her humanity, which is best exemplified when she reveals she would “dashed the brains out” of her own child, has allowed her to be pragmatic and manipulate her husband. She has been rewarded with success and power over her husband, which infers that this text is encouraging a desire to break limitations.

  However, a much greater reading suggests that Shakespeare is not praising her ambitions; rather, he appears to be highlighting the dangers of them. At the end of the play, she is presented as succumbing to a guilt that is destroying her. Her sanity appears to be decaying as she begins sleepwalking, which suggests that she is lacking inner peace and rest. She realises “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten my little hand” or wash away her guilt. Whereas before she believed “a little water clears us of this deed”, her strong character has broken down so that she keeps re-living the “so much blood” from Duncan’s murder. It could be argued that this guilt is a form of punishment for her earlier acts of transgression. Thus, it appears that Shakespeare is warning of the dangers of her aspirations. Whilst she initially appears to be rewarded with the success of being able to overpower Macbeth, it is clear that her aspirations are punished with guilt later in the play.

  Frankenstein, the titular protagonist from Shelley’s novel, is presented as having the greatest desire to pass beyond his limitations. His ambitions are much grander than those of Lady Macbeth and The Pardoner. During the creation of his Creature, he imagines a future where a “new species will bless me as its creator”, when he is the “source” of a new type of life. The use of biblical terms such as “creator” and “source” suggest that Frankenstein is a character aspiring to reach a God-like status, and gain the absolute power associated with that. This extremely ambitious character seeks to break the “ideal bounds” of life and death and discover the “secrets of life”. This arcane knowledge would have been considered by an 1800s reader as only belonging to God. Frankenstein’s aspirations to discover it may have been considered an arrogant usurpation of God’s role, and certainly reaching beyond his limits. Furthermore, he desires to create this being because the “wisest men” from history were unable to do it. Not only does he aspire to a God-like status, he also seeks to become the best of humanity. This extreme ambition appears to be followed by success, which leads to the interpretation that this novel does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations. He creates the Creature, succeeding in his goals. His ambitious “endeavours” have led to the greatest scientific discovery imaginable, and his “ardent” curiosity is satiated as he finally discovers nature’s “secrets”. Thus, it could be argued this gothic novel is encouraging Frankenstein’s aspirations, for he appears to have been rewarded with the success of a God-like status.

  However, a much greater reading would suggest that Frankenstein does not reach this God-like status at all. In what is a complete reversal of the relationship between God and Satan in Paradise Lost, where the creator (God) has power over his creation, Frankenstein is presented as controlled by his own creation. The Creature later labels Frankenstein as a “slave”, and himself the “master”. Despite being Frankenstein’s ‘child’, it is clear the dynamics of this relationship have been inverted so that it is the Creature who “have power” over his maker  The absolute power in this relationship lies with the Creature, and Frankenstein has no choice but to “obey” his demands. Moreover, the Creature’s murderous rampage, which leaves characters such as William and Elizabeth dead, causes much “anguish” for Frankenstein- and Frankenstein is powerless to stop it. It appears that Frankenstein’s ambitions only lead to “slavery” and "anguish", not to the God-like status he sought after. Thus, it could be interpreted that Shelley is warning against aspiring beyond our limitations, for it brings nothing but death and misery to this transgressive protagonist.

   Some gothic protagonists, namely the Pardoner, do escape punishment and retribution for aspiring beyond his limitations, which suggests that gothic writing does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations. However, it is clear that the ambitious characters of these texts are presented as more punished, facing greater retribution for their actions than they do rewards. Their aspirations often lead to mental torment and pain, not success. If these characters face such serious consequences for aspiring beyond their limitations, it can thus be argued that Gothic writing warns against the dangers of such behaviour. With the exception of the Pardoner, ambition is rarely encouraged as it does not lead to rewards or success in gothic writing. 

To what extent do you agree that the presentation of The Pardoner is more terrifying than horrifying?

In Chaucer’s The Pardoner’s Tale, there are many aspects of the eponymous narrator’s presentation that creates terror for the reader. Whether it is his power over the other Pilgrims, his hypocrisy or his sacrilegious behaviour, Chaucer appears to be creating a mysterious terror about The Pardoner. We cannot help but question everything about him. Whilst terror is created from the uncertainty about his character, it is also clear that horror is inspired from what we actually do know, such as his disregard for Church values, selfishness and hypocrisy.

Chaucer presents The Pardoner as the most powerful character in this poem, which may evoke a sense of terror and apprehension from the reader. This narrator’s true power lies in his knowledge and command of language. The Pardoner openly admits to using Latin to “saffron with my predicacioun” as well as biblical allusions “of victories in the Olde testament” to preserve his authority. This knowledge and control of language naturally gives the character a certain superiority; a power over his vulnerable audience. He often describes them as “lewd” and, for one Pilgrim, “noght his propre name”. This infers the idea that knowledge has elevated him above his “doun yset” audience. A sense of terror may be evoked as the reader questions how he came to gain this power and whether there is a limit to his commanding demeanour. However, a contrasting reading suggests that the dominating presentation of the Pardoner evokes much more horror. This feeling of immense horror and abhorrence may stem from his “principal entente”: to exploit. He repeatedly states that “myn entente” is to “winne silver” and become wealthy. The repetition of “myn” and “I” certainly emphasise his egocentric nature, and his sole concern for “myn” wealth is evidenced as he takes advantage of other people’s fears, such as having “doon sinne horrible”, to swindle money. Thus, the reader may be horrified as they realise that The Pardoner’s great power is not used responsibly. In fact, it is used in a repulsively selfish manner that completely defies the societal expectations of a religious preacher in the 1300s, who were expected to live generous lives helping out the poor.

The characterisation of the Pardoner is presented as more horrifying when the hypocrisy about him is fully introduced. His tale is arguably the most moral in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, and the Pardoner even states his theme is “radix malorum est Cupiditas”. This would naturally imply the Pardoner is a self-restrained man who attempts to avoid the temptation of money. The use of apostrophe “o glotonye” initially appears to emphasise his dramatic opposition to the concept of greed, which is “ful of cursedness”. Nevertheless, Chaucer presents him as more like the antithesis of a temperate clergyman. The Pardoner openly admits to the hypocrisy which defines his character: he is “gilty of the sinne”, practicing the “same vice” which he preaches against. His “theme” constantly juxtaposes with his avaricious nature. It does not matter whether someone is the “poverest page” or a vulnerable child about to die of “famine”. The Pardoner “wol have” money from them all, which presents him as extremely greedy, as well as hypocritical. It could be argued that terror is created from these opposing representations of the Pardoner. We as readers may be left in anticipation and thrilled by the fact he continues to get away with it. His hypocrisy could attract our interest as we desire to know whether his greed will be punished. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this hypocrisy inspires horror rather than terror. For a Medieval reader, the hypocritical Pardoner may serve as an abhorrent symbol of the corruption of the Catholic Church in 1300s England. It may horrify, rather than terrify, to see how a Pardoner is capable of using religion dishonestly (not for “correccioun”)  in order to extort “pens and grotes” from the vulnerable in society.

Chaucer’s presentation of the Pardoner is at its most horrifying when his sacrilegious behaviour, and utter dismissal of Church values, become apparent. Despite swearing to a life of celibacy, the Pardoner will have a “joly wenche in every toun”. With fake “bulles of popes”, the Pardoner abuses his position as a Pardoner to make money, when he should have sworn to a life of poverty. He is presented as utterly dismissing all church principles: he cares “nothing for the correccioun of sinne”. His only goal is “but for coveitise”, which further connotes that he is devoid of all religious and moral values. Hell and sin were seen as very real concepts which frightened many readers in Medieval England. Yet, The Pardoner remains indifferent to it so long as he has “wonne” his money. This may create a sense of terror for the reader as we eagerly await whether this corrupt character will ever learn from his moral tale about the “dampnable” company, or from his sermon concerning figures like Stilboun and Attilla. By the end of the poem, we are left unsure as to whether he ever will repent from his self-confessed “avarice”. However, a much stronger reading suggests that his reckless behaviour would horrify many readers. It is appalling to see how he values money in contrast to his own eternal life and humanity. He understands that greed caused humanity to fall from “Paradise to wo” and that it has corrupted many authoritative figures “lasse in reputacioun”. Yet, he is willing to remain ignorant to this insight, as well as all religious values, in order to satisfy his gluttonous “vice”. To “winne silver”. This presents him as excessively greedy and inverted in all his values, and this is where the most horror stems from within his presentation. 

The Pardoner is a character capable of inspiring a thrilling sense of terror. We are left uncertain about many aspects of his character: the limits on his powerful use of language and knowledge; if he can continue to get away with his crimes and whether he finally learn from his own tale by the end of the narrative. However, it is clear that the Pardoner’s presentation is, in fact, more horrifying than terrifying. His exploitative intentions to gain as much money as possible, his hypocrisy and his disregard for Church values all serve to create abhorrence for the reader. Chaucer’s presentation of The Pardoner stimulates more horror as they steadily realise how corrupt and greedy this abhorrent character is.

How far do you agree that Lady Macbeth is presented as a "fiend-like" queen?

Shakespeare’s presentation of Lady Macbeth is a very complex one which changes throughout the play. There are many wicked aspects of her character which highlight her fiendish nature. She is capable of great duplicity as she hides her callous behaviour from those around her. Earlier in the play, she is presented as rejective of her humanity and continues to have a lack of remorse for her actions throughout the play. However, there are many redeeming qualities to her character which suggest she is not entirely demonic. Her deceptive nature is not sustained throughout the play, and she does express many human qualities- rather than fiendish ones- such as her compassion, guilt and a supportive disposition towards her husband.

   Earlier in the play, Lady Macbeth is presented as an indifferent, uncaring character with qualities of a “fiend-like” queen. When Macbeth murders King Duncan, she does not comfort her horrified husband who can no longer look at his hands. Rather, she insults his manhood: “infirm of purpose” and describes him as “white” hearted and cowardly. This is a character who appears not to care about the consequences of her actions, and mocks Macbeth for feeling any regret at all. There is a strong sense of apathy about her character as she chooses to focus on framing the servants instead of expressing remorse: “go”, “get”, “carry”. The chain of imperatives in her language highlight her almost mechanical lack of regret as she works to destroy any evidence of their involvement. A Jacobean audience would be particularly shocked at this presentation because regicide was considered the most blasphemous, horrific act to commit. To remain indifferent to this treacherous crime would be considered a very fiendish quality. However, a contrasting interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does express a non-fiendish, sensitive side. During the same scene as Duncan’s murder, she reveals had Duncan “not resembled my father… I had done’t”. This suggests that she does possess a moral side to her character which prevents her from killing someone similar to her father. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that to frame the two servants, she needed alcohol to “make me bold”. This is not something an innately fiendish or cruel person would need to do. Therefore, it is more plausible that the callous side to Lady Macbeth we are presented with in this scene - “a little water clears us of” guilt-  is a façade. A façade she uses to cover up the immense distress she feels, and one that may be a result of ruthless pragmatism, rather than wickedness.

  Lady Macbeth is later presented as more devilish when she rejects her humanity and femininity. This is an unnatural desire which connects her with the “murdering ministers” and isolates her from God: “tend on mortal thoughts”; “unsex me”; “take my milk for gall”. She appears to shun human nature itself in order to commit this crime. Religion was a very prevalent part of Jacobean society. To have utter disregard for God’s will was considered sacrilegious, and a fiendish desire. No longer does wish she wish to be human: “fill me… of direst cruelty”. The superlative “direst” connoting an extreme level of detachment from humanity and God. However, a much stronger interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does this sacrificially in order to help her husband achieve kingship. The character is presented as wishful and ambitious for her husband’s benefit: she wants him to be “crowned withall!” and fears that he is “too full of the milk of human kindness” to do so. She states that he should “leave all the rest to me” which suggests she is willing to do everything necessary to help her husband. This is a very loving characteristic. Perhaps she is willing to lose her humanity in order to help Macbeth with his rise to the throne. Whilst she does appear to act diabolically by rejecting her humanity, it is clear that Lady Macbeth’s motives for doing so are very human, and not “fiend-like” in nature.

   Lady Macbeth is presented as most “fiend-like” when Shakespeare establishes a duplicity about her character. When in the courtyard of her castle, she is described as “our honoured hostess!” with “fair and noble” qualities by King Duncan. She effectively portrays herself as a an “innocent flower”. This is juxtaposed with the infamous “unsex me” scene when she is presented as a very wicked character who is out of sync with the sacredness of life. In that scene, she would have “dashed the brains out” of her own child and ominously states that Duncan “never shall sun that morrow see!” Through the juxtaposition of the “sweet” and “serpent” like qualities of Lady Macbeth, Shakespeare suggests this is a fiendish character capable of great deceit: “beguile the time, look like the time”. However, a much greater interpretation suggests that this duplicity is not enduring- it dissipates as the play progresses. Later in the play, her guilt over killing Duncan is presented as uncontrollable and impossible to conceal She begins to walk and confess her sins during her sleep: she “write upon’t” a piece of paper, and exclaims that “the old man… had so much blood”. She appears unable to control her abhorrence for her actions: “out, damned spot! Out!” Lady Macbeth is no longer a character who can plot regicide, and then be a “noble” hostess to that very king. This fiendish duplicity is absent from her character later, and suggests that Lady Macbeth is not completely demonic in nature.

  Lady Macbeth is often a character who behaves in a “fiend-like” manner. She callously plots regicide, expresses no regret over Duncan’s murder, rejects her own humanity and is presented as a very deceptive character. All of these are the qualities of a wicked demonic character. However, a much deeper reading shows that there are often very human motives for these actions. Perhaps her lack of remorse over Duncan’s murder is a method of coping with the distress, or the rejection of her humanity was to help her husband achieve kingship. It is clear that Lady Macbeth is a character capable of both wicked and human qualities, but for Malcolm to describe her as an entirely “fiend-like queen” is not apt description for this complex character.

To what extent do you agree with the view that, in Frankenstein, Mary Shelley is exploring “the dark side of the human psyche”?

In Frankenstein, Shelley appears to explore various elements of the dark side within the human psyche; the darkness within our mind and how it is affected by the subconscious. There are many aspects of the human psyche, or mind, that Shelley explores through Frankenstein and the Creature: violent and impulsive instincts within one’s id; an arrogant desire to play God and the effects of guilt. However, it is important to note that Frankenstein is a Gothic novel. Thus it is just as plausible that Shelley may be trying to explore many Gothic themes instead, such as punishment, the dangers of science and the monstrous.

Through the doubling of Frankenstein and the Creature, Shelley could be exploring the dark, violent and impulsive tendencies within the id of the human psyche. After his own framed tale, the Creature is presented as very barbaric and fierce. He is often described as a “wild beast” and as “monster” which connotes how he has lost his human characteristics and that he has become more bestial. Much like an animal, the Creature appears out of control in his rampage: he “glutted” himself in violence and allowed himself to be “borne away” by murder. This frenzied representation of the Creature mirrors the presentation of the protagonist, Frankenstein, later in the narrative. He also becomes full of “fury” and a vengeance which “moulded my feelings”. Through a paralleling structure, the Creature is thus presented as Frankenstein’s doppelganger. Furthermore, both of them are linked by an allusion to Satan in Paradise Lost- each of them “bore a hell” within. The Creature, as his double, appears to symbolise the repressed instincts within Frankenstein’s own mind, his id. Nevertheless, these subconscious elements begin to seep into his own consciousness (or superego) after the loss of his entire family. Frankenstein begins to act on the repressed instincts that his creature represents. Thus it could be argued that Shelley is exploring the ‘breaking point’ of a person, where the lines between id and ego collapse in the psyche. However, a much greater reading infers that Shelley is exploring the gothic theme of punishment. By having Frankenstein deteriorate from a passionate young student who wants to satisfy his “thirst for knowledge” to a “hellish” monster hell-bent on revenge, Shelley appears to be presenting him as damned, or ‘sentenced’ for his crimes. The character’s many sins, such as creating the Creature, appear to be condemned through Frankenstein’s declining sanity. Thus, it is a much more plausible that Shelley is exploring the idea of punishment rather than the dark side of the human psyche.

Shelley appears to be exploring more of the human psyche’s dark side, such as ambition and arrogance, through Frankenstein’s characterisation. In the novel’s opening, Frankenstein is presented as utterly obsessed, devoted and addicted to the creation of his being: it has an “irresistible hold” on him. His “heart and soul, in one pursuit”- this connotes how he is more than a man of “enthusiasm”. He is portrayed as being in “slavery” to his passion, implying that he has lost all control to this addictive obsession. It could be argued that this “ardent desire” stems from a subconscious yearning to play God. He wants to find the “hidden secrets of nature”, to “penetrate” the mystery of life. Contextually, these secrets are what a reader from the 1800s would associate with as arcane and only belonging to God. To try and find these secrets would have been considered an abhorrent usurpation of God’s role. Shelley appears to be exploring the hubris integrated within the dark recesses of the human mind, and possibly highlighting how it leads to the “emaciation” of mind and body. However, a contrasting interpretation suggests that Shelley is examining the dangers of science instead. Frankenstein is characterised as devoted to scientific research and the “secrets of life”. This appears to be criticised by Shelley, who was writing during the rise of Galvanism and the Age of Enlightenment. Science appears to lead Frankenstein to “ruin” and decaying into a “lifeless” thing. Furthermore, the product of this scientific pursuit is a “daemon” who rampages through the rest of the novel, leaving only a trail of deaths. Thus, it is much more plausible that Shelley is instead analysing the dangers of science and not the dark side of the human psyche.

Shelley is at her most probing of the dark side of the human psyche when she explores the guilt of Frankenstein. In response to Justine’s impending execution, Frankenstein is presented as remorseful and sorry: he is in a state of “living torture” and “horrid anguish”. He appears to be devastated that someone full of “joy” could be blamed for the crime committed by his creation. It could be argued that, through Frankenstein, Shelley is exploring another dark element of the human mind: destructive guilt. After all, “remorse pressed upon” the heart of this remorseful character, and it appears that the rest of the narrative hinges upon his desire to destroy the Creature and redeem himself. However, a much stronger reading suggests how Shelley is not exploring the guilt within Frankenstein’s psyche. Would a regretful character let the “innocent”, “most grateful little creature in the world” be executed for crimes they did not commit? They would not, which connotes how he does not feel guilt at all. Rather, Frankenstein is actually presented as egocentric and indifferent towards Justine. Following Justine’s execution, the words “I” and “my” are repeated often, which connotes his lack of consideration for her suffering. His only concern is for “my pain”, and this is chilling for the reader. Shelley appears to be exploring how monstrous and desensitized to death Frankenstein has become, possibly following the practice of grave-robbing. Rather than examining the dark, guilty side of the human psyche, Shelley appears to be presenting Frankenstein as monstrously indifferent. As readers, we are left wondering whether this egocentric protagonist truly has anything ‘human’ to be explored.

It is clear that Shelley does slightly delve into the dark side of the human psyche, examining many aspects such as the impulsive instincts within the id, a hubris that leads to the usurpation of God’s authority and remorse. However, it is clear that these are not Shelley’s primary concerns, as a writer of the Gothic genre. There appears to be more of a focus on themes such as punishment, the dangers of science and the monstrous. Whilst it is still an integral part of the narrative, the dark side of the human psyche appears not to be a primary point of exploration for Shelley in her classic novel.

Macbeth (2015) Review

Kurzel’s adaptation of Macbeth is a skilful film that utilises many techniques to answer the key questions raised within the source material. Who is at fault for Macbeth’s violent crimes? How much sympathy can we as an audience truly feel for this flawed protagonist? The answers to these questions appear to be the impetus of this well-made adaptation. Film techniques such as the use of colour saturation, slow-motion and the restructuring of the plot all serve to alter our ability to show compassion for the protagonist as he begins to “stepped so far” into a world of death and brutality.

The use of slow-motion during the opening proves very effective at developing the gothic themes of the source material. From the eager shaking of Macbeth’s sword as he waits for the battle to begin, through to its climactic conclusion, Kurzel chooses to reduce the film’s pace significantly. As a result, every single detail of this bloody battle can be savoured by the audience. Every brutal attack that Macbeth and Banquo execute upon their enemies can almost be felt, as the scenes play out slow enough for us to become more involved with every stab, kick and slice. Kurzel appears to be using this slow-motion technique to glorify and stylise the violence, which may reflect the characterisation of Duncan and his lords within the play itself. Both Macbeth and Banquo are praised as “worthy gentleman!” for their savage fighting style; they are “honoured” and “valiant”. Duncan’s speech is filled with a chain of positive adjectives to emphasise how respected Macbeth is for his actions- “brave Macbeth, well he deserves that name”. This attitude to the protagonist’s heroic efforts is reflected by the use of slow-motion, which presents their patriotic desire to protect their country as impressive, magnificent and extravagant. However, a more effective use of this slow-motion is how it infers the powerful influence of the Witches in this play. In a short segment of the battle sequence, the pace returns to real-time for the soldiers who continue to participate in the combat. This is juxtaposed with the shots featuring the eponymous protagonist and the Witches, who remain in slow-motion. For the audience, this effectively emphasises the influence they have upon Macbeth. Only he can see them, and his focus is on these arcane figures rather than the bloody battle as it continues around him. Kurzel’s use of slow-motion thus serves to isolate Macbeth as a protagonist who is no longer of the temporal world. From this moment on, Macbeth appears to be under the supernatural influence of the Witches.

However, Kurzel appears to spend the rest of the film disputing the assertion that Macbeth is under the influence of overwhelming supernatural forces. In the play, the Witches are otherworldly beings with the sole goal of “draw him [Macbeth] onto his confusion”. The plot is slightly altered in this adaption so that Lady Macbeth sees these mysterious characters. Whilst it may appear to be a small adjustment, this heavily influences the audience’s response to the question at the heart of this play: ‘who is to blame for Macbeth’s actions?’ In the play, it is ambiguous and unclear. This adaptation makes the mistake of eliminating the uncertainty that makes the play the timeless classic that it is. For Lady Macbeth to meet the Witches, Kurzel inadvertently diminishes the integrity of their mysterious representation as paranormal beings. In fact, there is very little makeup or effects (if any) used on these characters, which serves to present them as more human than “juggling fiend”. Rather than “vanish” completely after their meeting with Macbeth, they simply walk off into the fog. Kurzel appears to be creating a very realistic and grounded version of this classic gothic play. Furthermore, the famous dagger scene is adapted so that it is a young boy in a dream who offers the weapon to Macbeth. In the play, the origins of this dagger are much more obscure. We never truly know whether it is Macbeth’s “heat-oppressed” mind that hallucinates this image, or the Witches tempting him down a road of violence and death. Kurzel’s adaption does not preserve this mystery: the Witches are much less supernatural and arcane in this film, as the ambiguity which made them so interesting in the play is stripped away. This also makes it very difficult to blame Macbeth’s transgressive murders throughout the play on the overpowering influence on the Witches. Whilst the use of slow-motion earlier did appear to suggest that Macbeth was completely enchanted by their power, it is clear that the true fault for Macbeth’s actions lies with the protagonist himself.

In fact, Kurzel and Fassbender’s presentation of Macbeth appears to deliberately restrict our sympathies for the protagonist. During the film, the domination and command of Lady Macbeth is almost entirely omitted. Cotillard’s performance is very subtle as her character seduces Macbeth into committing regicide, rather than completely overpowering him. When Macbeth cowardly asks “if we should fail,-” in the film, it appears to stem from a fear of disappointing his wife for not being masculine enough. In the play, it is Lady Macbeth who uses his manhood and his pride as weapons in order to convince Macbeth. The film does not utilise this key concept within the play, for the delivery of Cotillard’s lines are too quiet for us to interpret her as the commanding partner of this relationship. In fact, much of the dialogue in the play has been cut from the film’s screenplay. Following Duncan’s murder, the use of imperatives and insults in her language- such as “infirm of purpose”; “white” hearted and “go get”- is absent from Kurzel’s adaptation. Similarly to the Witches’ presentation, her influence has been stripped to its core so that there is very little of it. This serves to increase the blame of Macbeth’s actions upon the titular protagonist himself.

Furthermore, Kurzel presents Macbeth as worthy of the titles “butcher” and “devilish Macbeth” during the act of regicide itself. In Shakespeare’s source narrative, the murder is completely omitted. It takes place off-stage, which may initially infer that Macbeth feels so much guilt for his crime that he cannot process it. He runs and hides immediately, refusing to go back to the “sorry sight”. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this crime is actually more abhorrent for the audience, hence why it is absent from the narrative. There is a suggestion that the crime is too horrific to be imagined. Kurzel appears to be adapting the play so that it coincides with the latter interpretation. He chooses to include Duncan’s murder within the film, and directs it in a perfectly chilling way. In what is one of the most accomplished scenes in the film, the audience is left repulsed by the violent, barbaric and bloody murder that Macbeth commits. It is the repeated stabbings, and the uncontrollable burst of ferocity, that presents Macbeth as so cold, and so indifferent. Thus, it could be interpreted that Kurzel is deliberately restricting our sympathies for the protagonist. Whereas the play included a duality about his character, which made him both sympathetic and morally revolting, the film does not portray Macbeth as someone we should feel sorry for. Even the film’s colour saturation, so that the scene appears orange and red during the final battle sequence, serves to distance us from Macbeth. We struggle to feel sympathy for the character because the colour saturation obscures him from view; all we can see is the ‘red’ that symbolises his bloody and violent path to power.

Whilst this film is flawed in its lack of ambiguity or mystery, there are many elements of the source material that Kurzel translates to screen faultlessly. He masterly reflects the glorification of violence in the play through stylised and stunning visual storytelling, and he cleverly restructures the story to open up original interpretations on how we as an audience should respond to Macbeth’s character. It is an impressive film that proves to be a faithful adaptation of this 400 year old play, whilst also having its own fresh, innovative and modern flair.