ENG111.003 -- Introduction to Literature: Beholding Violence in Drama and Film

Prof. Eileen Joy

Spring 2012

MID-TERM EXAM

**(due on Wednesday, February 29th)**

Figure 1. Francis Bacon, triptych inspired by Aeschylus's Oresteia (1981)

PART 1: Short Responses (10 points each)

*please respond to ALL of the following FIVE prompts with a MINIMUM of 3 full paragraphs per response; you may consult links on the online syllabus [and also quote from material there, if you see fit] when drafting your answers; also, and most importantly, be sure to bring in specific examples and details from the literature and films we have covered thus far [Haneke's Funny Games, Aeschylus's Agamemnon, Euripides's Medea, and Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds] to help illustrate your answers. I expect to see CLOSE analysis of specific passages--dialogue and specific scenes--in your responses in relation to whatever main observations and points you want to make. These questions are mainly interpretive in nature, and there are no absolutely "right" or "wrong" answers; what I want to see are thoughtful responses grounded in a close attention to the language and specific scenes of the texts and films themselves.

1. According to Joe Sachs's essay on Aristotle's Poetics, "Tragedy seems always to involve testing or finding the limits of what is human." Sachs further suggests that Aristotle was right to say "that the powers which first of all bring this human image to sight for us are pity and fear." Using ONE of the works we have encountered thus far [Funny Games, Agamemnon, or Medea], explore how the playwright or author-director taps into the audience's emotions of pity and fear in order to tell us something about the human condition--and what might that message be, and why might that matter, in your opinion? [In contemplating your possible response here, you might spend some time revisiting how Sachs defines the right types of pity and fear, versus the wrong types, when it comes to tragedy.]

2. With respect to BOTH of the Greek plays we have read thus far [Agamemnon and Medea], what do you see as the role of the Chorus in ancient Greek drama?

3. With reference to Inglourious Basterds, what happens when tragedy meets comedy, and why might this matter in relation to how we view the real history behind the movie [World War II, Hitler and the Nazis, genocide, etc.]? What do you think Tarantino accomplishes by bringing tragedy and comedy together, with regard to how we think about this very real, historical, and violent past?

4. In one of his interviews, the film director Michael Haneke said of his movies, "I try to give back to violence that what it truly is: pain, injury to another." With reference to ONE of the works of literature we have read thus far [Agamemnon, Medea], what might the playwrighthave been trying to tell their audience about violence? What might Aeschylus or Euripides have said in a YouTube interview about what they were trying to accomplish in their respective plays, especially when it comes to violence?

5. With reference to at least ONE of the films we have viewed thus far [Funny Games or Inglourious Basterds], explore the role of the audience in relation to the violence portrayed in these films. What are the ways in which these films might be critiquing the role of the spectator in relation to the violence inflicted on others? Do you think the depiction of violence in movies can ever have a positive, or even a moral, purpose?

PART II: Short Essay (50 points)

*Please respond to the following prompt with at least 5 paragraphs [minimum: 2 typed, double-spaced pages], and be SURE to include close analysis of scenes and language of the texts as support for your observations and arguments.

1. Of his films, Michael Haneke has said that they are "an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers . . . for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus." With reference to ONE of the literary works we have read thus far [Agamemnon or Medea], how do you see this play provoking important questions which it does not easily answer [or maybe doesn't even answer at all]? Another way of putting this might be: how does the play explore violence and revenge in ways that are complex and not simplistic? Further, how is the play not just easy entertainment, but actually about getting us to think about our lives and the world in which we live in ways that make not necessarily make us feel good about ourselves?