Within society, there are various issues, intense beliefs and opinions, creating

contrasting notions and views, subsequently driving discussion and arousing

controversy. This concept is evidently conveyed in William Shakespeares tragic
play Julius Caesar, and Joe Wrights credited film Atonement (2007), where
both composers intend to evoke a response from their audiences by using
techniques appropriate to their respective contexts.

The way a composer presents their perspective of an event, situation or
personality is important in shaping the audiences understanding and response.
In Julius Caesar, we are presented with conflicting perspectives from the
beginning of the play, regarding Caesars leadership of Rome, where the
commoners are celebrating his homecoming, shining a positive light on his
leadership. However, in opposition to this, the senators are sceptical of this
merriment, highlighted by Murelluss interrogative style of questioning:
Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings him home? We are again presented
with discord regarding Caesars leadership in the initial conflicting outlooks
between Cassius and Brutus, where in his soliloquy in Act 1 Scene 2, Cassius aims
to manipulate the malleable Brutus into turning his back on Caesar: Brutus,
thou art noble, yet I see thy honourable metal may be wrought. Conversely,
Brutus is initially reluctant; I would not Brutus. Yet I love him well. This
inherent conflict between these two central figures of the play results in social
and political instability, ultimately causing the division of the people.

Conflicting perspectives occur when different individuals approach the same
situation with different understandings and in Atonement, these conflicting
perspectives occur between nave thirteen year old Briony and her sister Cecilia,
upon viewing the intimate actions of Cecilias lover Robbie. As a 1930s girl,
culturally influenced by her conservative noveau-riche English background,
Briony attempts to protect Cecilias intergrity by accusing Robbie of sexual
assault. We first gain an insight into Cecilia and Robbies relationship through
Brionys perspective, as she enters the library. Visually, her figure is cast under
darkness, rendering her callous label of Robbie as a sex maniac unconvincing.
Furthermore, her poignant shock as she catches the couple in a compromising
position reminds the audience that an individuals perception of an event is
shaped by their personal circumstances, in Brionys case, her fatuity. This draws
parallels to Julius Caesar, as it is ultimately Caesars ignorance which causes
him to disregard Artemidoruss warnings, resulting in Caesar walking to his
death. The conflicting perspectives between the sisters is furthered as Wright
replays the library sequence through Cecilias perspective. The warm lighting as
the couple whisper I love you, creates an intimate atmosphere, heightened by
Wrights effective use of the romantic soundtrack love letters. Through this, the
audience is positioned to understand how the relationship between the lovers is
not of assault as perceived by Briony, but one of mutual affection. Thus, by
presenting us with multiple viewpoints, Wright explores how conflicting
perspectives are inherent between individuals with contrasting notions.

Miscommunication between individuals with conflicting perspectives can have
severe consequences, and in Julius Caesar, Shakespeare conveys this through the
use of dramatic techniques. In Act 1 Scene 2, the pathetic fallacy in the stage
direction Thunder and Lightning, forbodes Caesars dark future. This is
furthered when Calpurnia warns Caesar not to go to the senate, due to her blood-
filled dream, highlighted by her worried tone in her soliloquy: do not go forth
today, call it my fear. However Caesar, oblivious to these warnings, listens to the
cunning Decius who claims that the dream signified Caesars prominence as the
great leader of Rome, highlighted through his alliteration in: it was a vision fair
and fortunate. This is mirrored in Atonement, as Cecilias family, unaware of
Brionys stone-hearted intentions, are convinced by her labelling of Robbie as a
rapist, resulting in the unfortunate separation of the couple. The consequences
of miscommunication is furthered in the tragic event in Act 5 Scene 3, where a
misunderstanding if Titiniuss situation, as interpereted by Pindarus, results in
the death of Cassius. Thus, Shakespeare conveys how miscommunication
between individuals with conflicting perspectives can have extreme
consequences.

Congruently, miscommunication between individuals can enhance feelings of
animosity, and in Atonement, Wright conveys this through the use of film
techniques. Wright employs shifting point of view shots between Cecilia and
Briony, capturing their divergent understanding of Robbies actions. Here,
dissimilar to Julius Caesar, in which Brutus justifies his actions for the greater
good as opposed to the egocentric Cassius, the sisters independent perceptions
are intensified by their separate realities, and it is this detachment that catalyses
the conflict between them. As Briony accuses Robbie of sexual assault, shot-
reverse-shots between her resolute expression and Cecilias angered
disapproval; shes rather fanciful establishes a sense of enmity between the
two. This along with the disorientating focus shot of Robbies arrest compels the
audience to sympathise with the lovers helplessness. Thus, Wright explores how
miscommunication as well as conflicting perspectives can complicate
misunderstandings between individuals.

The composers representation of opposing viewpoints are ultimately
mechanisms to elicit specific responses in their respective audiences. Thus,
William Shakespeare and Joe Wright exploit the textual form of their respective
works to highlight the complex relationship between representation and
meaning.