Conflicting Perspectives Julius Caesar

Conflicting perspectives are the direct result of bias or self-interest as people are always quick to enforce the correctness of their perspective over those of others, by contrasting their perspectives with others, they seek to advantage their own point of view opposed to the viewpoints of others. Conflicting perspectives are caused by bias, or prejudice, and self-interest from a person, event or situation that is encountered. William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Philadelphia (1993), written by Ron Nyswaner and directed by Jonathan Demme, are both prime examples of when bias and self-interest lead to conflicting perspectives in society. More than anything else, conflicting perspectives are the immediate result of bias or self-interest as the emplify the rise of self in society.
In Shakespeare’s drama, bias and self-interest, more than anything else, are the key elements of the conflicting perspectives fabricated in the play. Shakepeare unites the epic legedary stories of nationalism in the history of Julius Caesar to the lyrical stage craft of the theatre. The drama provides a visual realism of the fortitude of men; it highlights the self-acting individual and their ability to supersede values of patriotism and nationalism when self-interest becomes apparent. A key example of this is the character Brutus. The characterisation of Brutus changes throughout the play. So the audience is left with the conflicting perspective of who Brutus is; they are only left with the representation of who he is, only to work out for themselves who the true Brutus is. At the beginning of the play, the audience is shown a character who is noble, good, patriotic, honourable but most of all, proud of Rome. He is also depicted to be loyal. “Brutus has rather be a villager than to repute himself a son of Rome.” This quote from Act 1 scence 2, shows the inital view of Brutus at the start of the play; it portrays him as noble and loyal to Rome. This becomes a motif throughout the play