Literary Genre - Am I on the right track?

My teacher was very vague when it came to literary genre and vision/viewpoint, so I'm not 100% about how I should approach this question.

I've just started a question, for practice. Can have a quick read and tell me if i'm approaching this correctly?

This is incomplete:



The three texts I have chosen are each very different in terms of genre. They each harness the expressive potential of their genre in order to convey their individual message and viewpoint. I will be discussing the Shakespearean revenge tragedy ‘Hamlet’, the autobiographical novel of Maya Angelou ‘I know why the caged bird sings’ (‘Caged Bird’), and the film ‘Witness’ directed by Peter Weir, which could by categorised as a romantic thriller.

In the case of these three genres, the narrative must be shaped accordingly. There are certain conventions to be followed. For example, the story of ‘Caged Bird’ is told from the first-person perspective of Maya Angelou, as it is an autobiography. Whereas the story of ‘Witness’ is revealed omnisciently, in order to give us a better understanding of each aspect of the story. Similarly ‘Hamlet’ was written to be played before our eyes, however it is a stage play and so cannot benefit from devices such as camera angles and editing like ‘Witness’ can. For example, ‘Witness’ begins with a long shot of the Pennsylvanian countryside, with long grass swaying in the wind. Shots like these help to establish the location and plot, but cannot be achieved through mediums such as novels and plays.

Likewise when conveying a character’s innermost thoughts; this is achieved differently with each genre. In ‘Caged Bird’ we understand Maya’s thoughts because we experience the story through her eyes, and we are constantly being informed as to how she is feeling. For example, at one stage Mama takes her to the white people’s dentist when Maya is in need of urgent dental attention. Mama is treated disrespectfully and it is in her nature to respond with pacifism, but Maya is outraged and conveys this longing for justice by presenting us with her fantasy – Mama fighting back and physically threatening the dentist.
Contrastingly, in ‘Hamlet’ we learn of the characters’ thoughts through ‘asides’ or ‘soliloquies’. This is a moment wherein the character expresses his thoughts by talking aloud so that we, the audience, can understand their thoughts. In act I scene ii, Hamlet has a soliloquy in which we discover that he would commit suicide if it were not that he would face hell in the afterlife. “...that the Everlasting had not fix’d / His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter!”.
Comparatively, this is handled in much the same way in ‘Witness’, except that it is able to benefit from voice-overs, and so it is not necessary for the character to speak to himself in the story. This adds to the realism. For example, when John Book is shot by McFee outside the elevator, he recalls his conversation with Schaeffer – “Who else knows about this?” Schaeffer asked. “Just you and I” Book replied. Through this voice over, we discover that Book is putting the pieces of the puzzle together in his mind. Additionally, Weir pointedly does not use all the fast cutting editing techniques associated with the genre. Instead he frequently uses slow panning camera shots, to help us understand the peaceful lifestyle of the Amish. Close-ups are also used to help us connect with characters and understand their thought-process.

There are extreme differences in the dialogue of these texts. ‘Hamlet’ is written in archaic English, using poetic structure and wordplay. This type of language was used in order to be interesting and evocative to the audience. Visual stimulation on stage was limited in Shakespeare’s time. Shakespeare’s plays often consisted of little more than several plainly-dressed actors on stage, with minimal props at their disposal. This meant that the emphasis was placed more on plot and language than visual effects.
Contrastingly, modern film productions such as ‘Witness’ have a whole range of visual effects and camera tricks at their disposal, and so they do not rely as heavily on the dialogue. However, the dialogue is very important to ‘Witness’ as a storytelling device. Often there is minimal dialogue, or the characters are speaking in German, but this is still a very revealing aspect of the story. We learn a lot from the various styles of language used by the different characters. Book is from the city, and so has a broad colloquial vocabulary and speaks in a city accent. The Amish predominantly speak German, and so are unfamiliar with some of Book’s mannerisms. This offers stark contrast between the two communities represented in the film.
Similarly, diction and accent are defining features of the Black community and the White community in ‘Caged Bird’. The Blacks tend to use contractions and slang, but some of the characters such as Mrs. Flowers pride themselves in their use of the English language. Mrs. Flowers says to Maya, “language is man's way of communicating with his fellow man and it is language alone that separates him from the lower animals”.

Getting pretty desperate now for reassurance.

Africa

Basically its the way story is told. So yeah that aint half bad. Out of those though im only doing hamlet. The point about it being a play is a bit weak though. Expand more on the soliloquys there. Also, overall you want about 6 paragraphs. So know your stuff.

Thanks for replying.

Do I include my own opinion?

Like:

I prefer the way that ____ is presented, because _______. Whereas ___________ was not very appealing because _____.

Africa

Depends on the question. Otherwise, no. I think.

Cheers

PaulMcG

Aren't you supposed to use Hamlet for the single text or are you studying it under comparative?