You are on page 1of 2

Conflicting perspectives (speech 2)

Within textual creations, textual form and medium stimulate a deeper


understanding of compelling and unexpected insights generated by conflicting
perspectives.
You are the keynote speaker at a conference for young writers and directors.
Compose a speech that explores how the representation of two personalities within
Julius Caesar and one supplement text validate the statement.

Good morning everyone and welcome to todays assembly of young writers and directors.
The notion of conflicting perspectives explores myriad interpretations of various personalities
presented through range of events and situations.
Throughout the history; such notion is conveyed evocatively by various entities through the
powerful use of textual form and medium appropriate to the situation. Such idea is clearly
manifested by Shakespeares play Julius Caesar aimed to convey irony of individuals
conflicting perception on politics and Paul Keatings Redfern park speech
(1993) aimed to convey necessity of reconciliation between aborigines and white Australians
conflicting perspective of each other. These texts cleverly explores conflicting perspective
within the categories of political, societal, personal and interpersonal conflict. These texts
distinctive medium and form hold significantly varied impact on audiences interpretation of
conflict conveyed and thus present a deeper understanding of the conflict aimed to be
conveyed. Both of the texts present power of speech and conflicting perceptions of societal
welfare.
Societal welfare is at the centre of the conflict within both Julius Caesar and Redfern Park
speech. Individuals varied perceptions on societal welfare catalyses the conflict within these
texts. In Julius Caesar this idea is presented by Brutus and Antony. Brutus idealistic
democratic political views conflict with Caesars dictatorial ideals. These idealistic views make
Brutus fragile against Cassius treacherous cunning. Cassius metaphorically says, many of
the best respects in Rome had wished that Brutus had his eyes and through such reference
to his respect and virtuous character successfully leads him to personal conflict. Where for his
love for Caesar he says, I know no personal cause to spurn at him but his idealistic view
leads him to think, it is the bright day that bring forth the adder. Shakespeare juxtaposes
Brutuss virtuous self with his intellectual weakness to create conflict of interpretation within
audience. He makes audience ponder for their own opinion of Brutus character. Further
through the medium of play Shakespeare stresses the conflicting perceptions by creating
dramatic tension as conveyed through Cassius dramatic hyperbole, he doth bestrides the
narrow world like colossal. Antony on the other hand supports Caesars government and
thus is laid to interpersonal conflict against Brutus. Antony is shown to possess treachery and
cunning rhetoric as outlined through, mischief, thou art afoot. Shakespeare however
contrasts hissuch negative self with his more positive self and love he bears for Caesar,
Caesar was my friend. This again leads audience to form their own perception of Antonys
character.
Paul Keating similarly communicates societal welfare to create conflicting perception on
various identities. He inclusively assert, it is the test of our knowledge. through such
inclusive language he ensures that his appeal is linked with his audience. The medium of
speech allows him to stress his arguments through direct reference to his audience. This is
clearly demonstrated through his affirmative tone appealing to audiences sense of identity

and morality, we cannot give indigenous Australian up without giving up much of our own
deeply held ideals, much of our own identity and much of our own humanity . This reference
to audiences humanity allows him to lead his audience to personal conflict with aim to rectify
their conflicting perception of aboriginal Australians. Further through Speech by direct
reference to audience he utilises dramatic anaphora, imagine ours was the oldest culture
and we were told it is worthless.Imagine if our spiritual life was ridiculed to lead his
audience to personal conflict on their cultural views. Paul Keatings important appeal relating
to conflicting perception between Aboriginal people and white Australians is emphasized
through direct appeal provided through speech.
The power of speech is clearly portrayed by both texts. It is through the medium speech
various conflicting perceptions are outlined and further promoted. In Julius Caesar, Brutus and
Antonys speeches reveal various personal and political conflict and further also clearly
outline characters vices and virtues. Brutus says through use of antithetical opposites that he
killed Caesar, not because I loved Caesar less but because I loved Rome more outlining his
virtuous character in contrast to his evil actions. Through such contrast Shakespeare
promotes personal conflict in the audience to decide for their own interpretation. In contrast
Antonys virtuous self is promoted through his emotive tone, when poor have cried Caesar
hath wept which renders him the mobs sympathy as expressed by there is no one nobler
than Antony. Brutus fails to connect to the mob because he lacks evidence and merely draws
inferences based on nothing, because he was ambitious I slew him. In contrast Antonys
strong evidence of Caesars virtue put forward through rhetorical question, I thrice offered
him the kingly crown which he thrice refused..was this ambition? lends him the mobs
approval. Through these speeches the mob is led to conflict. They initially swayed by Brutus
shout, live brutus! live! Live! but when influenced more strongly by Antony appeal shout
with rage, fire! Kill!.... This shift in alliance successfully convey shift in power of speech.
Through the medium of speeches Shakespeare presents interplay of interpersonal and
political conflict between Brutus and Antony. This clearly emphasized various conflicting
perceptions and conflicting character vices and virtues.
Paul Keatings appeal is presented through the medium of speech. It is this medium that
allows him to successfully form the link of empathy with his audience by direct reference.
Through speech he asks to form Australia which is truly, A land of fair go and better chance.
He utilises anaphoric inclusive language, we brought the disaster, the alcohol, we committed
murders to create personal conflict regarding the guilt of white Australians through which
he aims to promote reconciliation. Through speech this anaphora creates a dramatic sincerity
which is necessary to outline the situation. Keating further successfully argues for indigenous
Australians contribution through reference to sport, they are there is sport in order to
disenfranchise white Australians lack of trust of Aborigines abilities. Keating at the end of his
speech create hopeful mood through affirmative tone, we cannot imagine that we will fail to
clarify conflicting perception on the hopeless aspect of reconciliation.
In conclusion, both of the texts explore various conflicting perspectives. These conflicting
perspectives are developed appropriate to various situations. So deeper understanding of
these conflicting perspectives is promoted through varied textual form and medium. These
texts clearly explore conflict within categories of societal, political, personal and interpersonal
conflict and form deeper understanding by presenting power of speech and conflicting views
on societal welfare.