Otto Von Bismarck Essay Example for Free

Otto Von Bismarck Essay Otto Von Bismarck was made Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Prussia by I in 1862. He stayed in power until 1890. His conduct of foreign policy between 1862 and 1871 is one of the most fascinating and complex parts of the nineteenth century. It ended with the unification of Germany on 18th January 1871, under Prussian dominance, with King William of Prussia being coroneted as Kaiser in Versailles. The German unification is possibly the most important and significant events in history, as it has had so many effects and consequences across the whole world, and still does to this day. One of the most widely debated topics of the nineteenth century is to what extent is Bismarck responsible for the unification. Basically, was Bismarck’s foreign policy more about conscious design, or a policy by default largely determined by other key personalities and events? Some people try and say that Bismarck was always heading towards German unification, and that he had been planning how to get there all along; but actually, Bismarck hardly planned a thing – he instead was just very good at taking things as they came. His main aim was to strengthen Prussia, and make it into a stronger country. An example of how Bismarck did not plan what he did is how he came to power. He was not elected, so he was not planning ways in which to gain votes etc. ; instead, he was suddenly catapulted from being ambassador to St. Petersburg, and then Paris, to being chancellor of Prussia. Bismarck was also known for his personality. It was this that initially got him to where he was. He was nicknamed ‘The Iron Chancellor†, and he fitted this name very well. In 1862, when William was refused money by liberals to pay for his army, he threatened to abdicate, but was persuaded to elect Bismarck as chancellor instead. Everybody who knew Bismarck knew him as being wild, and a bully, a conservative, an army man, and as being a ‘Machiavellian’. He was cunning, scheming, unscrupulous, vicious, manipulative, calculating, brutal, and devious, and also very good at improvising. It was these things that William liked about him, and Williams’s expectations of Bismarck were achieved. Immediately after being put in office, Bismarck suspended the constitution and gave the army the money it needed. Now he was in control of Prussia as it was maturing and reaching power. Another event that shows how Bismarck did not plan things is the Danish Crisis in Schleswig and Holstein in 1864. Some people say that Bismarck planned this, and did it to get Austria involved, and to be nice to her by giving her some land, but which he could take at any time as it was next to Prussia, and cause up rise. In reality, Denmark unexpectedly attempted to annex Schleswig and Holstein, and Bismarck just saw a chance to gain some land, respect, popularity, and a small advantage over Austria; he did not previously plan any of this, he just ‘played the cards he was dealt well’ e. g. e ended up doing it with Austria – this made him look good in front of everyone else, and also lulled Austria into a false sense of security. This was a first step towards Bismarck thinking cleverly about how he could get an upper hand over Austria. Although Bismarck did not necessarily plan all of the things that he did, he was very good at playing what came along well, and thinking about all of the consequences of his actions, and how he could use what he had to his best advantage; because of this, he was a great man who was clever and quick thinking, so we have not at all been deceived about him. It has often been said that Bismarck never meant for what most of what he did to happen, and that what he did was just mainly luck e. g. there was an extraordinary interlude of calmness during his time. This meant that he was able to many things that he should not have been able to do without risking international intervention. Britain is a good example of this international calmness. We were far more concerned with looking after ourselves, and keeping our empire strong and wealthy, than in events in Europe. The one thing that we did have a view on, and it was a strong view, was that we hated France, and this ended up being good for Bismarck anyway. Austria and France were also calm when Bismarck needed them to be – after Austria lost the war, it took her a reasonable amount of time to recover, and Bismarck used this time wisely; France had previously been hammered during Napoleon Bonaparte’s conquest of Europe, and was hated by many, and so was lying low for some time, and again, Bismarck used this greatly to his advantage. A handful people believe that Bismarck’s legacy is too big for his own good. As some people say that he caused German unification single-handedly, because this was a huge event which had enormous consequences and effects, people automatically think of Bismarck as being a greater and better person than he actually was, and that he shifted history his way more than he actually did. But, without Bismarck, luck and other things would not have been a big enough factor to cause German unification, and so he was needed, and he was a great man. Bismarck is said to have unified Germany, but there are several other people who contributed to it more than people think, who are often forgotten about, and not so well known. One of these people is Napoleon III of France. Napoleon III was a very weak, feeble, useless and pathetic ruler. When he was anxious to gain compensation and maintain France’s role as a great power, he was looking at Bismarck and Prussia for anything to grab onto and attack, but Bismarck gave him nothing to react to. This just angered Napoleon even more, and made it easy for Bismarck to use Napoleon when he wanted. Napoleon was such a weak and terrible ruler, that he automatically gave Bismarck an advantage, as Bismarck could easily control Napoleon, and trick him into doing things that he did not realize the consequences of. Bismarck very easily irritated Napoleon on purpose, but he did not go too far e. g. the Hohenzollem candidature, where Bismarck tried to put a Prussian prince in the Spanish throne. This would mean that Prussia would have a massive advantage, as France would be surrounded by Prussia, and could even face fighting on two fronts. Obviously Napoleon was furious when he heard about this, but Bismarck quickly withdrew the candidature, meaning that Napoleon did not act at all, and Bismarck looked good, as he had withdrawn it ‘to be nice to France’. Napoleon did not see what was happening, which meant that Bismarck could do almost what he wanted around him. Ludwig of Bavaria was an obstacle to Bismarck. He led the biggest German state (apart from Prussia). When Bismarck was making all of the head of the states agree to letting, acknowledging, and going to William’s coronation of becoming Kaiser of Germany, Ludwig was the only person to refuse, but Bismarck easily got around this problem by coming to an agreement with Ludwig, which was that Ludwig would accept the demands if Bismarck let him keep his ornate postboxes. This was a major victory for Bismarck, as it was the end of the very old state of Bavaria, which had lots of history, and patriotism, and was at one point a very strong power. Bismarck was controlled and told what to do mainly by William and also by the conservatives and the middle class taxpayers. William especially had absolute control over Bismarck. He had promoted him to chancellor. Prussia’s General (Moltke) was also very important. He was a superb General, and led Prussia’s army very well to its victories. Bismarck was not a military leader, and without Moltke could possibly not have done nearly as well as he did. Russia was massively important. She did not intervene during Prussia’s wars against Denmark and Austria in 1864 and 1866. If she had, Prussia would have probably lost, leading to a whole different outcome; the war with Austria led to the North German Confederation in 1867. Russia never once stopped the new central power from emerging, even though it was given plenty of opportunities. This may have been because of the Tsar. He always blamed Austria for his father’s death, and so refused to help her. Bismarck was helped on several occasions by certain countries not intervening in 1870 with the war with France, Britain did not intervene as she still hated France, neither would Italy, as she owed her acquisition of Venetia to Prussia’s victory over Austria in 1866 and also wanted to get the French out of Rome; and Austria was still recovering, and was held back by Russia, who threatened to send in 300,000 men if she got involved. This meant that Bismarck did not need to be scared of fighting on two fronts at all. Also, without the realignment of the great powers that resulted from the Crimean War, German Unification would probably not have happened. Bismarck himself even said: â€Å"It all began with the Crimean War†. Although all of these people and events were important, Bismarck was the fundamental key to the unification. Without him, it would not have happened, so we have not at all been deceived – he was a great man who was the key to the German Unification. When Bismarck came to power, Prussia was coming to its peak in almost every way. She had a brilliant General (Moltke), she was industrializing she had amazing railways and weapons and she had a thriving economy. Another help to Bismarck was the fact that Prussia was physically a large state. Some people believe that Bismarck did not need to do much, and he just did well, as it was a coincidence that he was in the right place at the right time. But, although Prussia was doing well at Bismarck’s time, it needed Bismarck to bring it all together, and make it happen! Many people say that German unification was inevitable, and would have happened even if Bismarck had never lived, because of certain preconditions. For example: nationalism had been growing for many years. This can be shown in the 1848 revolutions; also, it still kept on growing after the revolutions. Nationalism was now a talked about thing – people had written about it, and apart from the monarchs etc. who too were scared of it, people were discussing it among themselves. Also, gradually over the last few decades, there had been becoming less and less German states. Originally there were more than a hundred very small states, similar to the size of a large estate, or maybe a small county today; but as stronger states had engulfed other weaker states, fewer and larger states emerged. By the time Bismarck was around, there was not much more than twenty states. This gradual reduces in the number of states shows that eventually, there would have been a German unification without Bismarck anyway – he just sped the process up. The 1848 revolutions also showed that there was a want for change already there with the people, even before Bismarck, and so again, there would have been German unification without him. Another thing that shows that there would have been German unification without Bismarck anyway is that the Hapsburg Empire had slowly been on its downfall for many years, starting well before Bismarck’s time. At the height of its power, the Hapsburg Empire was enormous, and extremely powerful and very autocratic, but it had slowly been becoming less and less of a major power, and other countries were beginning to be able to almost rival it. Many people also say that the struggle between the German states and the struggle between Prussia and Austria had to be settled some time, and this would have happened regardless of whether Bismarck was there or not. By the time Bismarck came to power, there was as well a want for unification already there, which some say would have caused it anyway if Bismarck had not been there (liberals had wanted unification for a long time, but now there were also others who wanted it, like some of the working class, and some of the middle class – also, there were many who did not think about unification, but would have probably supported it if they could more easily). Also, in 1866, the southern states were becoming increasingly hostile to Prussia, and the other northern states. A war to resolve the hostility between France and Prussia, and to force the southern states into joining the North German Confederation seemed likely in 1869. This showed that even if Bismarck had not been there, then there would have been the unification anyway. People say that these points show that it was not Bismarck who caused the unification, but it was in fact going to happen anyway; but actually, it was Bismarck who brought all of these separate points together to make the unification happen. Without him these points would not have led to it, they need Bismarck! He brought these points together, and therefore it was Bismarck who made it possible. So we have not been deceived, as Bismarck was a great man, who shifted these points his way, leading to unification. Bismarck was a great man, and he had a great personality, and was always willing to do things. Bismarck was a great Machiavellian. He was brilliantly sly and cunning, and his truth was flexible. He was happy to put down anyone he needed to, even his friends. He always desired a stronger Prussia, and it was this desire that led to him unifying the German states. He was fundamentally a conservative, but he cleverly managed to get all different sorts of people to like him, and to be on his side – even many of the liberals. He was very gifted at making people believe something he wanted them to believe, or do what he wanted them to do e. g. he got William to agree to becoming the Kaiser, as he got all of the rulers of the other states to give him the crown. Bismarck was also very good at knowing when to stop – he would irritate someone a lot, but stop just before they exploded. He did this with Napoleon III. Bismarck also never took any risks that were too big. He always knew what he was doing, even though it often looked the opposite. He would only proceed with something if he was satisfied with his chance of success. This was his key strength – he was an unbelievable decision-maker. This meant that he was also very good at ‘playing things by ear’, which meant that he never had to plan things too far in advance, and he was very good at putting himself into other people’s shoes, and seeing what the consequences of all of his decisions could be. Bismarck was also very strong willed. He always did what he wanted, and never stopped or hesitated for anything. He was like a steam train going full speed, and having to make hundreds of decisions of what path to take – he was unstoppable. Proof of this is that when he came to power, the majority of people did not want unification, but he still managed to make it happen. William was also nearly useless without Bismarck. He was too weak and slow. Bismarck was a great man, and he certainly did shift history his way when he wanted to.

Nazi Germany(1919-1938) :: Papers

Nazi Germany(1919-1938) Summary [IMAGE]The rise of Nazi Germany was the capstone of the inter-war period, and led to the outbreak of World War II, shattering the tenuous peace. The Nazi regime's progress was paralleled by the life of its leader, Adolf Hitler. Born in a small town in Austria, Hitler dreamed of being an artist. Unable to demonstrate sufficient artistic skill for entrance into the art academy in Vienna, he did odd jobs and developed an interest in politics. In 1914, Hitler joined the German army, and earned the iron cross for bravery as a message-carrier. He was immensely disturbed by the German defeat in World War I, and blamed the loss on the socialists and Jews, who he said had surrendered the nation. [IMAGE]In 1920, Hitler seized control in the German Workers Party, changing its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party, called the Nazi Party for short. On November 9, 1923, Hitler and World War I hero General Ludendorf attempted a small revolution known as the Beer Hall Putsch. Hitler had jumped onto a beer hall table and proclaimed the current Weimar government overthrown. He and Ludendorf led their supporters into the street, and were promptly arrested. Hitler spent two years in prison, where he wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle), which outlined his future policies, centered on the theory of Aryan superiority and Jewish inferiority. [IMAGE]Released in 1925, Hitler honed his oratorical skills and worked for the advancement of the Nazi party. Such advancement was slow in coming through the years 1925 to 1929, a fairly stable period in Europe. However, as the world became mired in depression and unemployment rose, so did support for the Nazi Party, which promised employment and a return to glory for the nation. In 1932 the Nazis won 37.3 percent of the popular vote and occupied 230 seats in the German Reichstag. There was little stability in the German government at this time, and seeking a solution to this instability, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933.

Theatre-Director’s Role

The director is the most important person in the play because without his visions the actors would have no purpose and nothing would go on. Without the director all would be at loss in the theatre. The director is the one who tell everyone what to do and installs the fear into the cast and other to perform at their best at all times. The director is the person who all the actors and stage crew and everyone tries to impress and they will always be on their best behavior while the director. I would want to be the director because everything is dependent on you and you are the one who calls the shots and I will maintain order on the set. The director is the one who knows the whole play and has to get the performers to perform and to make the show run as smoothly as possible. If the actors or stage coach were to get out of line or not do their job then the director would heard about it and not be do happy about it. The preparation for the director is a major issue. Many hours of perfecting the acting according to the script takes a strain when you have to account for everything that is going on. A director must having coping skills and still be enough and authoritarian to have respect from all the members of the cast. For me personally, I would have to learn how to work with people instead of getting mad and not wanting to work through problems that might occur during rehearsal and the whole production in general. The work and preparation that needs take place is tremendous, but the director has to put so much pre meditated work in that is not seen by many people, but its truly eveudent in the final production.

Nature of Accounting and the Accounting Standard

Nature of Accounting and the Accounting Standard Background Accounting is an important part for business and it is dubbed â€Å"language† of business activities conducted by firms. People think it is used to communicate business transactions per se to all stakeholders. However, some people argue that the functions of accounting are not that easy. Except the communication tool, accounting acts as many other difference roles in business. When doing accounting, different standard may be used. There are many issues about accounting standard nowadays.To getting a subjective view of accounting, it is necessary to understand how accounting is worked. This essay will analyze the application of accounting in the various situations to reach a conclusion. It will give some perspective for accounting also. Firm as an accounting object As we know, accounting was widely used in the firm. In accounting, firm means some business entity aiming at earning economic profit. In general, there are three types of firms: proprietorship, partnership and corporation. Firms are classified by the types of ownership, limitation of liability and so on.According to Scott Besley (2007), a proprietorship and partnership is an unincorporated business. Proprietorship firm owned by one individual while partnership owned by two or more people. A corporation is â€Å"a legal entity by a state†. The owners and managers may not be the same person. Corporation have unlimited life and enjoin limited liability. Owners have no responsibility for liabilities of the corporation. However, for proprietorship and partnership, owners must payback all liability of creditor. Although there are various classifications for firm, its object is quite same.The general object of a commerce firm is earning profit. However, firms cannot just focus on the financial income. There are many other aspects must consider. The firm which is just care about financial achievement will suffer form ethic dilemma. Dobs on (1997) defined the behavior that firm just consider about self-interest individualistic and opportunistic as â€Å"finance paradigm†. He criticized that it would cause another lost for people. To be an ethic firm, it should select object carefully to maximize the benefit for all relevant people.Rather than running business individually, people do commerce via firm. Firms exist because it can provide a more efficiency operation environment for people. However, even if firms can offer a better way for people doing business, we shouldn’t ignore the troubles arising from it. Accounting and transaction Transaction plays a special role in firm’s daily operation. In general meaning, transaction is exchange of goods or services between entities, as well as other events that have an economic impact on a business.It is a business’s economic record by accounting (Weygandt, Kimmel, & Kieso, 2011). It should be clarify that not all events generated in business proc ess can be record. Accounting must considers about what transaction should record and how it is record. There are two major assumptions about whether transaction should be record. The first one is monetary unit assumption. In accounting, we just record the transaction data which can be express in money term (Weygandt, Kimmel, & Kieso, 2011). Another assumption is economic entity assumption.Accountant must just account the transaction relevant to certain firm. The active of its owner or other economic entity should not be record in the firm’s account (Weygandt, Kimmel, & Kieso, 2011). In addition, such action must affect the component of accounting equation dually. That means it should affect assts, liability or equity. Measurement method in accounting As it mentioned before, the major object of account is identify, record and communicate the transaction. In real life, the environment for accounting is changing continuously.So, accountant should know how to record and measure transaction properly. To facing price changing, there are two major approaches to record and measure transaction: historical cost principle and fair value principle. When using historical cost principle, companies record assets as its cost (Weygandt, Kimmel, & Kieso, 2011). That means if the value of goods in such transaction is changing, it will keep the original record of such goods. However, we should update the record of assets value according to the market price in fair value principle.When managers decide which standard should be used, there are various factors need to be consider. Inflation is necessary for measurement method decision. Alhashim & Arpan (1992) claimed that when price is stable, the historical cost principle could provide an objective view for company’s performance. Managers may prefer this method to measure transaction. However, study also show that when it is high inflation, using historical cost principle will provide some useless information. If the price is changing frequently, the historical cost principle will not suitable.For example, in British, because it was suffer from high inflation rate in the history, the accounting standard in this country select fair-value principle. (Alhashim & Arpan, 1992) Cost measurement is an important part in accounting. Since the component of cost for business is complex, it will select material cost for example. There are two common principles for material cost evaluation. One is average value method, another is FIFO method. Company’s objective should be considered when choosing those approaches of cost measurement.When using average cost method, company’s income statement will show lower income so that company will enjoin lower tax. However, when firm choosing FIFO method, they will pay higher tax because of the high income present by income statement. When company wants to reduce tax cost, they may choose average cost method. Otherwise, they will choose FIFO method to attrac t investment by showing well performance. Except form pervious example discussed, there are many other factors could affect the measurement method.For example, David Solomons (1970) think that feasibility like objective, low cost of implementation and ease of understanding for users will affect the judgment for measurement method. In different condition, managers will choose different principle. So, it is difficult to say which principle is better. Conclusion By analyze relevant item of accounting, the perspective of accounting is more clearly now. Transaction is a vital component of accounting and there are various principles about it. However, accounting is related to other aspects also. Merely defined accounting as analyzing transaction per se is not false but not objectively.Communication is also a vital part of account. It is properly to descript accounting as a â€Å"language† of business. As mention before, there are many communicating methods and standards for account ing. Different regions may have different accounting â€Å"language† (Alhashim & Arpan, 1992). It is a challenge for current international company. To solve this problem, it is necessary to build and spread a unified standard for international accounting right now. Reference Alhashim, D. D. , & Arpan, J. S. (1992). International dimensions of accounting. Boston: PWS-KENT publishing company.Dobson, J. (1997). Finance ethics: the rationality of virtue. Cummor Hill, Oxford OX2 9JJ, England: Lanham [u. a. ] : Rowman & Littlefield. Scott Besley, E. F. (2007). Essentials of Managerial Finance. Natorp Boulevasr, Mason OH: South Westren College. Solomons, D. (1970). Assets valuation and income determination: appraising the alternative. In R. R. Sterling, Assets valuation and income determination (p. 105). 4431 Mt. Vernon, Houston, Texas: Scholar Book Co. Weygandt, J. J. , Kimmel, P. D. , & Kieso, D. E. (2011). Financial Accounting. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

How to Say and Write I in Chinese

How to Say and Write I in Chinese The Chinese symbol for I or me is 我 (wÇ’). Easily remember how to write 我 by understanding the Chinese characters radicals and interesting etymology. Me Versus I While the English language has separate terms that differentiate between me and I, Chinese is simpler. One character, 我, represents both me and I in the Chinese language.   For example,  Ã¦Ë†â€˜Ã© ¥ ¿Ã¤ ºâ€  (wÇ’ à ¨ le) means I am hungry. On the other hand,  Ã§ »â„¢Ã¦Ë†â€˜ (gÄ›i wÇ’) translates to give me. Radical The Chinese character  Ã¦Ë†â€˜ (wÇ’) is composed of 手 (shÇ’u), which means hand, and 戈 (gÄ“), which is a dagger-like tool.  In this case, 手 is used here in the form of æ‰Å', the hand radical.  Thus,  Ã¦Ë†â€˜ appears as a hand holding a little spear.   Pronunciation 我 (wÇ’) is pronounced using the third tone. This tone has a falling-rising quality. Character Evolution An early form of 我 showed two spears crossing. This symbol evolved into its present form over time. Depicting a hand holding a spear, the Chinese character for I is a  symbol of ego assertion and therefore an appropriate representation of â€Å"I or me.† Mandarin Vocabulary With WÇ’ Here are five examples of common Chinese phrases that incorporate the character,  Ã¦Ë†â€˜: 我們 traditional / 我ä » ¬ simplified (wÇ’ men) - We; us; ourselves 我è‡ ªÃ¥ · ± (wÇ’ zà ¬ jÇ ) - Myself 我的 (wÇ’ de) - Mine 我明ç™ ½ ( wÇ’ mà ­ngbi) - I understand 我ä ¹Å¸Ã¦Ëœ ¯ (wÇ’ yÄ›shà ¬) - Me too

Analysis of Yasmina Rezas Play God of Carnage

Analysis of Yasmina Reza's Play 'God of Carnage' Conflict and human nature when presented with it, are the predominant themes of Yasmina Rezas play God of Carnage.  Well-written and a display of fascinating character development, this play gives the audience an opportunity to witness the verbal battles of two families and their complex personalities. An Introduction to God of Carnage God of Carnage is written by Yasmina Reza, an award-winning playwright.   Rezas  other notable plays include Art  and Life x 3.  Author Christopher Hampton translated her play from French into English.  In 2011, it was made into a film  titled Carnage, directed by Roman Polanski. The plot of God of Carnage  begins with  an 11-year-old boy (Ferdinand) who strikes another boy (Bruno) with a stick, thereby knocking out two front teeth. The parents of each boy meet. What begins as a civil discussion ultimately devolves into a yelling match. Overall, the story is well-written and it is an interesting play that many people will enjoy. Some of the highlights for this reviewer include: Realistic dialogueBelievable charactersInsightful satireSubtle / vague ending Theater of Bickering Most people arent fans of ugly, angry, pointless arguments - at least not in real life. But, not surprisingly, these types of arguments are a theater staple, and with good reason. Obviously, the stationary nature of the stage means that most playwrights will generate a physically sedentary conflict that can be sustained in a single setting. Pointless bickering is perfect for such an occasion. Also, a tense argument reveals multiple layers of a character: emotional buttons are pressed and  boundaries are assaulted. For an audience member, there is a dark voyeuristic pleasure in watching the verbal battle which unfolds during Yasmina Rezas God of Carnage. We get to watch the characters unravel their dark sides, despite their diplomatic intentions. We get to behold adults who act like rude, petulant children. However, if we watch closely, we might see a bit of ourselves. The Setting The entire play takes place at the home of the Houllie family. Originally set in modern Paris, subsequent productions of God of Carnage  set the play in other urban locations such as London and New York. The Characters Although we spend a short time with these four characters (the play runs about 90 minutes with no breaks or scene changes), playwright Yasmina Reza creates each with a sprinkling of commendable traits and questionable moral codes. Veronique Houllie  (Veronica in American productions)Michel Houllie  (Michael in American productions)Annette ReilleAlain Reille  (Alan in American productions) Veronique Houllie At first, she seems like the most benevolent of the bunch. Instead of resorting to litigation regarding her son Brunos injury, she believes that they can all come to an agreement about how Ferdinand should make amends for his attack. Of the four principles, Veronique exhibits the strongest desire for harmony. She is even writing a book about the atrocities of Darfur. Her flaws lie in her overly judgmental nature. She wants to instill a sense of shame in Ferdinands parents (Alain and Annette Reille) hoping they will, in turn, instill a deep sense of regret in their son. About forty minutes into their encounter, Veronique decides that Alain and Annette are terrible parents and miserable people in general, yet throughout the play, she still attempts to maintain her crumbling facade of civility. Michel Houllie At first, Michel seems eager to create peace between the two boys and perhaps even bond with the Reilles. He offers them food and drink. He is quick to agree with the Reilles, even making light of the violence, commenting on how he was a leader of his own gang during his childhood (as was Alain). As the conversation progresses, Michel reveals his uncouth nature. He makes racial slurs about the Sudanese people whom his wife is writing about. He denounces child-raising as a wasteful, grueling experience. His most controversial action (which takes place before the play) has to do with his daughters pet hamster. Because of his fear of rodents, Michel released the hamster in the streets of Paris, even though the poor creature was terrified and clearly wanted to be kept at home. The rest of the adults are disturbed by his actions, and the play concludes with a phone call from his young daughter, crying over the loss of her pet. Annette Reille Ferdinands mother is constantly on the brink of a panic attack. In fact, she vomits twice during the course of the play (which must have been unpleasant for the actors each night). Like Veronique, she wants resolution and believes at first that communication can ameliorate the situation between the two boys. Unfortunately, the pressures of motherhood and household have eroded her self-confidence. Annette feels abandoned by her husband who is eternally preoccupied with work. Alain is glued to his cell phone throughout the play  until Annette finally loses control and drops the phone into a vase of tulips. Annette is the most physically destructive of the four characters. In additional to ruining her husbands new phone, she intentionally smashes the vase at the end of the play. (And her vomit incident spoils some of Veroniques books and magazines, but that was accidental.) Also, unlike her husband, she defends her childs violent actions by pointing out that Ferdinand was verbally provoked and out-numbered by the gang of boys. Alain Reille Alain might be the most stereotypical character of the group in that he is modeled after other slimy lawyers from countless other stories. He is the most openly rude because he frequently interrupts their meeting by talking on his cell phone.  His law firm represents a pharmaceutical company that is about to be sued because one of their new products causes dizziness and other negative symptoms. He claims that his son is a savage and doesnt see any point in trying to change him. He seems the most sexist of the two men, often implying that women have a host of limitations. On the other hand, Alain is in some ways the most honest of the characters. When Veronique and Annette claim that people must show compassion toward their fellow man, Alain becomes philosophical, wondering if anyone can truly care for others, implying that individuals will always act out of self-interest. Men vs. Women While much of the plays conflict is between the Houllies and the Reilles, a battle of the sexes is also interwoven throughout the storyline. Sometimes a female character makes a disparaging claim about her husband and the second female will chime in with her own critical anecdote. Likewise, the husbands will make snide comments about their family life, creating a bond (albeit a fragile one) between the males. Ultimately, each of the characters turns on the other so that by the plays end everyone seems emotionally isolated.

Chanticleer review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Chanticleer review - Essay Example In February 22, 2013, the Chanticleer performed at the Ellen Eccles Theatre in UT, Logan. This was a twenty year celebration concerning The Cache Valley Center for Arts. This paper offers an overview of their performance. The Ellen Eccles Theatre was built in the early twentieth century. Over the years, it continues to draw loads of people from all over the U.S. its tickets are always in demand due to the variety and quality of shows it offers. An example is the Grammy-award winning Chanticleer group. New Yorkers praise the Chanticleer as the best male chorus in the world. Its presence at the Ellen Eccles attracted thousands of fans and music enthusiasts who wanted to catch a glimpse of the famous and sensational singing of Chanticleer. Subsequently, when they came on stage, they lived up to these expectations. Their intonation was perfect with a variety of singers ranging from bass to countertenor. It was as though they were using fabrication technology to sing through. However, they proved this by staging the microphones in front of their half-circle formation. Each singer brought out the required cadence, which was smooth. No one was high, low, or out of tone. In combination, the microphones captured a pure blend of music which was incredibly soothing to the ears. In fact, this was obvious from how the audience kept quiet and was enthusiastic throughout the performance. Furthermore, backed up by the magnificent and state of the art Ellen Eccles stage, the Chanticleer displayed a swagger of style with elegant black tuxedos. The unique feature that Chanticleer offers are the feeling of uncertainty that they bring out in their performance. No one can predict how their performance is going to be. Hence, spectators recognize the value for their money. Apart from the pure tones, the group also offered a flawless melding of immaculate melodic layers that filled the Ellen Eccles with luminous sound. The