English Essay - In drama there are more interesting roles for men than women. How would I go about writing this?

[StSilver]

Right, the question is

"In drama there are more interesting roles for men than for women." Discuss to what extent you agree with this statement and what it is that makes a role interesting. Refer closely to at least two plays you have studied.

The play we're studying is Macbeth, and he said we only have to refer to one play, rather than two.

I've brainstormed for ideas and I've got a few.

-Equality

-Creation of tension

- Men are usually victims

- Women tend to be powerful figures (Hecate, witches, Lady Macbeth)

- Making a role interesting (Breaking of 'hero' stereotype, inner conflict, gallows humour)

And the thing is, I really don't know how to write this essay, not too sure where to start. Can anyone help me jut by pointing me in the right direction?

[Arrowhead]

You come up with a thesis, i.e. an opinion, on the question and go from there. So if I was doing this question, I would start as follows:

Thesis: 'Interesting' is a vague word that for the purposes of this essay is being interpreted to mean three-dimensional and significant to the main plot of the play; in light of this interpretation of 'interesting,' there AREN'T more interesting roles for men than women.

Then you move into your essay's main body and discuss each plays one after the other in succession with reference to the 'interesting' female characters in them and the manner in which their characters have been fleshed out to be more than one-dimensional figureheads and indeed, significant to the overall development of plot/storyline in the play.

Rather simple really, but of course you can reinterpret this question in a number of different ways.

Arrowhead.

[URA BOAT]

when that play was written men were the gods and women were nothing...they didn't even let women play the role of a women...the used young boys for those roles(idk what they did when it came to the romantic parts of the story..i guess they just called no homo)anyway so the writer being sexist will glorify mans roles...he wont even try it can naturally

[Arrowhead]

when that play was written men were the gods and women were nothing...they didn't even let women play the role of a women...the used young boys for those roles(idk what they did when it came to the romantic parts of the story..i guess they just called no homo)anyway so the writer being sexist will glorify mans roles...he wont even try it can naturally

True but debatable. Ordinarily I would agree with that perspective, however the OP clearly said that he has to refer to one play, that one play being Macbeth. Shakespearean theatre was a pioneer in its time because of its scandalous nature. Despite it being the 1600s, Shakespeare was a modernist playwright with undertones in his plays that could be seen through and through as an equality supporter. He was one of the first-ever playwrights to bring forth strong female figures in theatre: Portia in Merchant of Venice who bested the Jew, Viola in Much Ado About Nothing who won over the duke despite her façade, arguably the cynical feminist portrayal of Gertrude in Hamlet contending that she too was somewhat involved in the murder of the late King at the hands of Claudius hence her speedy remarriage, Portia in Julius Caesar, a minor character but one of great purport despite the brevity of her role, Lady Macbeth and the witches, and so on and so forth.

Of course a more interesting course of an argument can be taken with regards to Shakespearean theatre in that whenever he has presented a strong female character, her character has been driven and determined by two all important factors: the love and acceptance of a man AND she has gained her empowerment when dressed in the garb of a man: Portia pretended to be a male barrister in Merchant of Venice and Viola pretended to be her supposedly dead twin's avatar as the Duke's aide.

Yet Shakespeare has applied more tendencies of flippancy and what we now recognise as the Marilyn Monroe persona to many of his female characters more in the wayside: Jessica in Merchant of Venice, Calphurnia in Julius Caesar, Ophelia in Hamlet, arguably Gertrude as well by the more common understanding of her character, and so on.

So really, depending on where you stand on the Shakespeare is a sexist issue, the answer to a question revolving around Macbeth is variable and diffident at the best of times.

[dessskris]

I haven't read Macbeth so idk but I would structure my essay this way:

Intro

"In drama, there are indeed more interesting roles for men than for women."

or

"In drama, there are not only interesting roles for men, but also for women."

or

"In drama, there are actually less interesting roles for men than for women."

then name the texts you're using and name the male and female characters that you want to discuss. evaluate a bit more on what you think "interesting" means and go ahead to the body of the essay.

Body

depending on your stance, talk about the characters/roles.

if you think men>women, you talk about the male characters first (one per paragraph) then you talk about the female characters, vice versa. if you think men=women then talk about male female male female (alternating, one per paragraph).

Conclusion

therefore... restate your stance

that's how I'd do it, personally.

[meghankdm]

Dear Reader,

What if I had to answer this question in a different context? Like,say..comparing the role of importance of women of Julius Caesar and Hamlet?

Thanks.