Critical Review of the Movie Red Cliff

Red Cliff, directed by John Woo, recounts the tale of the Battle of Red Cliffs.  Around 200 CE, China was split between rival warlords.  Cao Cao controlled the north, while Liu Bei and Sun Quan ruled the south.  When Cao Cao launches a bloody campaign to seize the south, Liu Bei and Sun Quan form an uneasy alliance against Cao Cao.  Using ingenious military tactics, the allied south and Cao Cao clash again and again.  These preliminary battles lead to one final decisive encounter: the Battle of Red Cliffs.  
Though five and a half hours long, Red Cliff contains suspense and fascination in every minute.  Detailed battle scenes are followed by breathtaking depictions of nature and Red Cliff contains as much personal conflict as fighting.  John Woo has included everything in this film: love, political strife, warfare, shrewd military strategy, espionage, poetry and a great appreciation of nature.  The well-developed plot and characters are further enhanced by brilliant camera work as well as elaborate costumes and sets.  The attention to detail is unrivaled.  
This film has only two possible weaknesses.  There are so many characters that the story is sometimes hard to follow, especially for non-Chinese audiences.  However, some background information about the historical circumstances is given at the beginning at the film and the characters’ dialogue itself will often explain relationships and events.  For anyone who is easily confused, five minutes of research before watching Red Cliff will clear up any perplexities.  
Another small flaw is that Red Cliff focuses mainly on the lives of the upper class and military leaders.  However, this is to be expected because the lower classes had little power to personally affect the outcome of the Battle of Red Cliffs.  Nevertheless, peasants are shown several times and the film does feature a blossoming friendship between a princess and a peasant soldier.  
One of the strengths of Red Cliff is how realistic it is.  Red Cliff is not just a movie about brutality and warfare.  It discusses the personal relationship between Sun Quan’s viceroy Zhou Yu and Yu’s wife Xiao Qiao as well as Xiao Qiao’s connections to Cao Cao.  It reveals the inner workings of the political system of the collapsing Han Dynasty, led by Cao Cao. It portrays all the characters in Red Cliff as multidimensional and human.  Generals in both armies are able to recite poetry as well as play music on instruments like the qin.  Everyone has emotional moments and ultimately Red Cliff shows that war creates evil on both sides.  One of the generals says at the end, “There is no victor here.”  
Even the warfare depicted in this movie is interesting and intellectual.  The battles are exciting but do not revel in death and gore.  The military tactics used are ingenious and always discussed beforehand.  Especially impressive is the “Tortoise Formation,” used by the southern allies to lure Cao Cao’s army into a trap.  Red Cliff also focuses on the skill of individual warriors in battle as well as the cunning of Princess Sun Shangxiang, who infiltrates Cao Cao’s camp and learns valuable information.  

The camera work in Red Cliff highlights important scenes by dwelling on the details, often for longer than usual.  The actors’ emotions and actions are highlighted by the camera, which often gives a close up view of the actors’ faces.  The detailed costumes and sets also contribute to making Red Cliff as realistic as it is.  It does not skimp on the scenes involving many people nor on the many settings where the film takes place.

John Woo creates the perfect combination of intellectual and exciting in this action-packed yet complicated film.  Red Cliff may be five and a half hours long, but it uses every minute well.  Do not be put off by the length or historical setting of this film; it is well worth watching!

Critical Review of Another Version of Macbeth

Shakespeare’s play Macbeth has always been an audience pleaser; it is packed with action but also addresses deep questions.  Macbeth, a Scottish noble and warrior, is told by three witches he is destined to be king.  Egged on by his wife, Macbeth murders the rightful king, Duncan, and seizes the throne.  The violence does not stop there.  Macbeth murders again and again, thinking it will bring him stability and peace of mind.  As the country descends into chaos, the other nobles, and the true king, Duncan’s son Malcolm, plan a revolt.  With such an intriguing fast-paced plot it is hardly surprising Macbeth has been filmed as a movie many times.  

Director Geoffrey Wright’s 2006 version, featuring Macbeth as a troubled gangster, is the most recent.  Some viewers may enjoy seeing the story modernized in this way.  But Wright’s film mainly demonstrates how difficult it is for a modern film version of Macbeth to balance action and special effects with the underlying intellectual themes. The basic plot is difficult to follow, the characters never develop, and the special effects are excessive.  Overall, this version is more along the lines of a vaguely ridiculous horror film.

Wright’s Macbeth has only one feeble virtue; it does represent the violent and bloody aspects of Shakespeare’s play. Macbeth stabbing Duncan is shown in gory detail, as is the suicide of Lady Macbeth and the murders Macbeth’s opponents.  However, the numerous blood-spattered walls do not convey the serious, tragic chaos of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, only a pathetic attempt at drama.
Besides doing away with all intellectual aspects, the basic plot structure is almost impossible to follow.  The movie opens with Macbeth and Lady Macbeth mourning their dead son, something that never happened in the original Macbeth, but then never returns to this random addition to the plot.  The witches are too busy flirting with Macbeth to even clearly reveal the prophecies that are essential to the story.  There are random car chases shown with gangsters in sun glasses shooting at each other in slow motion.  Even people who have studied Shakespeare will find this hard to follow.

In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, characters make choices that are clearly right and wrong.  Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are virtuous in the beginning but their minds and morals deteriorate as the play unfolds.  Other characters, like the true heir to the throne Malcolm, reach maturity and morality by the end.  This complicated characterization and change is not displayed in Wright’s version at all.  From the very beginning all the characters seem crazy, drunk, high and immature.  Sam Worthington, as Macbeth, is not the noble warrior his character is at the beginning of the story.  Worthington is shown drinking after killing several people and is soon cheerfully engulfed in pink smoke where he flirts with the witches.  Lady Macbeth, played by Victoria Hill, is first shown lying in bed, possibly drugged.  She is far from the strong, calculating, and intelligent presence she is in the original.  By the end everyone comes across as a murderous, drunken jerk.

The play ends with Macbeth lamenting his own death, leaving the fate of his kingdom unclear.  The calm prosperity that is supposed to be restored by the rightful king is not mentioned, but the audience is still sure to be relieved as this ridiculous movie is finally over.

Macbeth, a brilliant play by William Shakespeare, touches on the psychological consequences of crime as well as the physical ones and is an engaging action-packed story.  Unfortunately, Geoffrey Wright has directed a movie version of Macbeth, that contains, not the tragic deterioration of a country and its leading couple, but only bloody, confusing chaos.

Critical Review of Macbeth

Shakespeare’s play Macbeth has been staged and filmed many times since it was written and its popularity has spawned many different versions and interpretations.  It is a story of one couple’s relationship and their gradual descent into madness, chaos and violence. Macbeth, a nobleman, is told by three witches that he is destined to be king.  He and his wife take matters into their own hands and decide to murder the current king, Duncan.  However, the Macbeths discover that the violence will not end once they are on the throne.  Macbeth is both overconfident and paranoid as he commits more murders thinking it will bring him stability.  In the end, Macbeth is overthrown by the people of Scotland, and the rightful heir takes the throne.  Macbeth is brilliantly produced by the Folger Shakespeare Library with directors Aaron Posner and Teller.  Their version accurately conveys the dark chaos, violence and emotional drama of Macbeth with excellent acting and visual effects.  The visual effects also make this production interesting and exciting to watch even for viewers who have never studied Shakespeare.  
Although the Posner and Teller version is well worth watching it does have some faults.  A few special effects were unnecessary. For example, immediately after Macbeth’s and Banquo’s first encounter with the witches, Banquo stabs one of the witches as they leave and seems to succeed in killing her.  The witches are supposed to be magical and mysterious, not tangible and conquerable.  Banquo stabbing a witch detracts from the witches’ mysterious power.  Later, Lady Macbeth has actual blood on her hands when she is supposed to be hallucinating, undermining the impression that Lady Macbeth is psychologically damaged.  The witches pour blood on top of Macbeth at the end, in an unnecessary display of gore. Though these special effects detract somewhat from the play, overall the special effects enhance the dark, violent atmosphere.
Generally, the acting is one of the strengths of this production.  The only actor who disappoints is Paul Morella as Macbeth’s friend Banquo.  Banquo is supposed to be the wise, thoughtful opposite of Macbeth.  However, in this version Banquo is as loud, angry and forceful as Macbeth, diminishing the important contrast between him and Macbeth.  Fortunately, Morella does make it obvious Banquo disapproves of Macbeth’s murderous actions.  In addition, Ian Peakes and Kate Norris, as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, both portrayed their characters’ emotions well and the camera clearly showed their facial expressions.  The actors and the camera together show the intense emotional and psychological elements of Macbeth that are so much a part of the dark violent mood.

One of the most notable strengths of the play is the staging.  The actors use the full stage including an upper level, staircase and even act out in the audience.  This movement makes the play more dramatic and engaging.  The witches leer down at the public from their raised position as Macbeth stares up at them.  The soldiers at Birnam wood run through the audience and the murderers exit right up the main aisle of the audience.  Teller and Posner combine scenes to make them more interesting and to show what is happening at the same time.  Banquo’s murder was played out right behind the throne where Lady Macbeth and Macbeth sat together.  These combinations and imaginative staging show connections in the story and make it more entertaining to watch.

The music and special effects added to the overall feeling of suspense, foreboding and violence.  John Killkenny was a master of the gongs, drums and sinister tinkling noises.  Banquo’s ghost, the revolving dagger, the apparitions and the witches were all believable and frightening.  
Lastly, both the end and the beginning of this version of Macbeth highlight the dark violent chaos.  The play begins with the introducer getting stabbed and the theater going dark before the first actors appear.  At the end nearly everyone is covered in blood and holding battle swords.

The Teller and Posner production of Macbeth had its faults but overall the excellent acting, camera shots, inventive staging, special effects and background music conveyed the dark mood of the play and drew in the audience.  This excellent production of Macbeth is worth watching especially for people who have not studied Shakespeare extensively.  Teller and Posner manage to engage the audience while staying true to the original, showing how captivating Shakespeare was and why his work has endured for so long.  

Comparative Shakespeare Paper

In both As You Like It and Macbeth by William Shakespeare, the natural world is a force of good and correctness, which is highlighted by the supernatural world.  In each play, the characters have strayed from the natural life and must return to it by the end.  In the tragic Macbeth, nature is angry at the injustices of court and this anger is channeled through the supernatural.  Conversely, in the comic As You Like It, nature is a peaceful refuge from the injustices of court and this calm is shown through the supernatural.  
In the beginning of both plays, the true ruler is forced off the throne and another takes his place.  This marks where the characters of the court began to stray from the natural and correct way of life.  
In Macbeth, nature is angry that the true king, Duncan, has been killed by Macbeth.  By murdering Duncan, Macbeth has upset the natural balance and engendered chaos.  The night of Duncan’s murder was filled with storms and even earthquakes.  Lennox says, “The night has been unruly. Where we lay,/ Our chimneys were blown down and, as they say,/ Lamentings heard i’ th’ air, strange screams of death,/ And prophesying, with accents terrible,/ Of dire combustion and confused events/ New hatched to th’ woeful time.  The obscure bird/ Clamored the livelong night.  Some say the earth/ Was feverous and did shake” (Shakespeare 2.3.61-69).  Supernatural events like the “strange screams of death” that talked of “dire combustion and confused events” accentuate nature’s disapproval of the murder at court and foreshadow the chaos that will come from upsetting the natural balance.  Indeed only a few hours later, Ross and an old man discuss the many violations of nature that have occurred since Duncan’s murder.  Ross describes the unnatural darkness that has covered the sky as a result of “the heavens” being “troubled with man’s act” (2.4.7).  Even the natural hierarchy of animals has been upset, mirroring how the natural hierarchy at court has been upset through the crowning of Macbeth as king.  “‘Tis unnatural,/ Even like the deed that’s done. On Tuesday last/ A falcon, tow’ring in her pride of place,/ Was by a mousing owl hawked at and killed” (2.4.13-16).  An owl would not normally kill a falcon, nor would horses usually kill each other: “Duncan’s horses (a thing most strange and certain)...Turned wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out...Tis said they eat each other” (2.4.17-23).  As soon as Duncan is murdered, nature expresses its anger through unnatural supernatural happenings.  

Similarly, in As You Like It the true ruler is Duke Senior who has been usurped by his brother Duke Frederick.  As a result, there is much unhappiness at court while those who have fled into nature are happy.  In As You Like It, when the court begins to stray from the natural way, nature provides a safe haven to recover and change for the better.  Many people are unhappy and angry at court.  There is much conflict between Orlando, Oliver and Duke Frederick.  Orlando and Oliver do not get along for no real reason. Oliver says “I never lov’d [Orlando] in my life” (3.1.14). Duke Frederick does not like either of them because of their father.  Duke Frederick says to Orlando “I would thou hadst been son to some man else./  The world esteem’d thy father honorable,/ But I did find him still my enemy” (1.2.213-215).  Rosalind is deeply unhappy because her father has been banished and because she wants to spend time with Orlando but cannot.  Meanwhile, news of Duke Senior’s natural life in the Forest of Arden has reached the court. When Duke Frederick banishes Rosalind unjustly, it is to the Forest of Arden that Celia and Rosalind head, saying, “Now go we in content/ to liberty and not to banishment” (1.3.133-134).  From the beginning, nature is portrayed as a refuge from the evils of court in As You Like It.

Throughout both plays, the supernatural continues to highlight nature’s reaction toward immorality and “unnatural behavior” of the characters.  In Macbeth, the supernatural conveys the nature’s fury at Macbeth for his murders.  However, in As You Like It, the supernatural highlights the healing powers of nature.  

As the murders and chaos of Macbeth’s reign continue, more and more supernatural events occur.  When Macbeth murdered Banquo, nature responded by sending Banquo’s ghost to frighten and punish Macbeth.  Upon seeing the ghost Macbeth becomes completely unhinged saying “The time has been/ That, when the brains were out, the man would die,/ And there an end. But now they rise again/ With twenty mortal murders on their crowns/ And push us from our stools. This is more strange/ Than such a murder is” (3.4.94-99).  Macbeth killing Duncan went against the way of nature and therefore unnatural events, like Banquo coming back as a ghost, plague Macbeth himself.  Lady Macbeth also begins to succomb to the supernatural events.  Lady Macbeth begins to sleepwalk, hallucinating about blood on her hands.  Her doctor says helplessly, “A great perturbation in nature, to receive at/ once the benefit of sleep and do the effects of/ watching” (5.1.10-11).  Lady Macbeth’s unnatural sleepwalking is highlighted by her continued screams of “Out, damned spot, out, I say” (5.1.37).  Lady Macbeth is the only one who can see the blood on her hands, and she takes this as evidence of the fact that she will never be able to be morally clean again.  The Macbeths’ offenses against nature are too serious for forgiveness. As the doctor says, “Unnatural deeds/ do breed unnatural troubles” (5.2.75-76).  Nature remains furious until the Macbeths are both dead.  

As the story of As You Like It continues, it becomes clear that nature, represented by the Forest of Arden, has supernatural healing powers.  The members of Duke Senior’s court are  happy there and gain wisdom.  Duke Senior says “Now my co-mates and brothers in exile,/ Hath not old custom made this life more sweet/ Than that of painted pomp? Are not these woods/ More free from peril than the envious court? Here...our life, exempt from public haunt,/ Finds tongues in trees, books in running brooks,/ Sermons in stones, and good in everything” (3.1.1-17).  There is much to learn from nature, and nature protects people from the troubles of the human world.  

Everyone who enters the Forest of Arden undergoes a magical transformation.  Rosalind grows more confident and independent.  She relies less on Celia’s advice and even disagrees with her at times.  Orlando and his brother are reconciled through the supernatural appearance of a lioness.  Orlando saves his brother from the lioness and the two find new love for eachother.  The Forest of Arden cures other love ailments as well.  By the end of their stay in the forest, Orlando, Rosalind, Celia, Oliver, Touchstone, Audrey, Phoebe and Silvius have all overcome their various courting problems and have married.  It is obvious that the nobles and noblewomen learn from the lives of the peasants, who live in harmony with nature.  Corin argues calmly with Touchstone when Touchstone declares that the ways of the country are silly and inferior.  Corin says “Those that are good/ manners at the court are as ridiculous in the country/ as the behavior of the country is most mockable at court...” (3.2.44-47).  

The Forest of Arden also allows the nobles to disregard the hierarchy of court and live together naturally.  Duke Senior hunts and eats together with all the members of his court, and invites Orlando, as well as his servant Adam, to join them at the table.  Duke Senior says “Sit down and feed, and welcome to our table” (2.7.105).  Duke Senior even reassures Orlando that they will not begin eating until Adam can join them: “Go find [Adam]...we will nothing waste till you return” (2.7.133-135).  Nature is a welcome respite from the troubles of court and has magical healing powers on the troubles that the nobles do bring with them.

Through either the healing powers of nature or in response to nature’s fury, the characters of Macbeth and As You Like It return to the natural way by the end.

In Macbeth, the kingdom of Scotland is returned to the natural order through the death of the Macbeths and the crowning of Malcolm as king.  As the son of Duncan, Malcolm is the rightful king.  In fact, nature is used to unseat Macbeth.  The soldiers use boughs from Birnam Forest to disguise themselves as they march on Macbeth’s castle.  When Macbeth sees that “[Birnam] wood comes toward Dunsinane” (5.5.51-52) he panics, realizing he will now be defeated.  Indeed, nature has come to restore Malcolm to the throne and save Scotland.  The supernatural triumphs over Macbeth in that the witches’ prophesies all come true in the end and Macbeth is slain.  Macduff says to Malcolm and all the nobles present “Hail, King! for so thou art. Behold where stands/ Th’ usurper’s cursed head...Hail, King of Scotland!” (5.8.65-70). Everyone responds “Hail, King of Scotland!” (5.8.71).  Malcolm then makes plans to call back all the refugees who fled Macbeth’s reign as well as to bring the evil members of Macbeth’s court to justice.  The play ends with “So thanks to all at once and to each one,/ whom we invite to see us crowned at Scone” (5.8.87-88).  It is obvious at the end of Macbeth that Scotland has been returned to the natural way.  Nature has been appeased and there will be no more strange and evil supernatural occurrences.

In As You Like It, the court returns to the natural way as well.  Duke Frederick sets off to raise an army against Duke Senior but just as he reaches the Forest of Arden he magically changes his mind and decides to take on a religious life.  “Duke Frederick hearing how that every day/ Men of great worth resorted to this forest,/ Address’d a mighty power, which were... to take/ His brother here, and put him to the sword./ And to the skirts of this wild wood he came,/ Where, meeting with an old religious man...was converted/ Both from his enterprise and from the world,/ His crown bequeathing to his banish’d brother...” (5.4.153-162).  The Forest of Arden cured Duke Frederick as well as the other members of the court.  The marriages at the end are a sign that everyone has been restored to the good natural way.  The play ends with Duke Senior declaring “Proceed, proceed. We will begin these rites,/ As we do trust they’ll end, in true delights” (5.4.196-197).  Though it is clear that most of the nobles will not stay in the Forest of Arden, it is clear that they will return to court, changed and restored to the natural way.  

In Macbeth, nature is harsh and violent in response to Macbeth’s many evil deeds, whereas in As You Like It, nature is a safe and restorative haven from the evils of court life.  However, in both plays the natural world is a force of good and correctness.  The principle that humans should live in harmony with nature is a common principle that is found in many cultures.  Shakespeare displays this principle from many different perspectives in both of his plays.  

Tanka

Dove in the Garden

Prickly roses
Arc over a mother dove
Light dapples her head
Danger and shelter are one
To this young dove and her flock.

Haiku

Water

Fog obscures buildings
And raindrops blur window-panes
But inside tea boils.

Literary Analysis of The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga

The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga is a social commentary on the effects of the huge gap between the wealthy and the poor in India.  This large gap creates instability that often leads to morality being compromised for individual gain.  The poor are so desperate that they are willing to do almost anything to make it out of poverty.  At the same time, the rich are so far removed from the plight of the poor that they become desensitized and corrupt.  The point of view from which the story is told, the use of humor, the patterns of imagery, and the end of the novel emphasize the disparity in wealth and the immorality that results.  
The White Tiger is told in first person from the point of view of Balram Halwai.  This makes the reader feel the most connected with Balram, both because it seems like Balram is talking directly to the reader and because Balram’s perspective is the only one shown.  Balram was born into the extreme poverty of a rural Indian village where there are “glistening lines of sewage” in the streets (Adiga 36).  Through his job as a chauffeur to a rich man living in New Delhi, Balram is exposed both to extreme poverty and to fantastic wealth.  Balram’s unique perspective uncovers immorality in the servant class as well as the master class.  He believes that immorality is justified at least somewhat by desperation as a result of poverty, and because the novel is written first person, the novel promotes Balram’s position.  

Through Balram’s first person account of his own “rags to riches” story, the reader learns about wrongdoing at the top and the bottom.  When Balram goes back to his village to visit his family, he complains bitterly about his family, who exploited his father for his meager salary until he died.  Balram speaks matter of factly about the school teacher who steals the food and uniforms provided by the government to the village school children.  “The teacher had a legitimate excuse to steal the money—he said he hadn’t been paid his salary in six months.  He was going to undertake a Gandhian protest to retrieve his missing wages...Yet he was terrified of losing his job, because though the pay of any government job in India is poor, the incidental advantages are numerous...” (Adiga 28).  This teacher is so desperate that he is driven to stealing from people just as poor or poorer than himself.  As someone who is equally desperate, Balram understands this. Since Balram is the narrator, we understand it too.

Balram’s feelings about the rich are conflicted.  Balram’s perspective as a servant to the wealthy engenders hatred for his masters, who are corrupt and arrogant.  Balram’s chauffeuring job brings him in close contact with his master’s everyday activities, which include paying off politicians and paying large sums of money for prostitutes.  While their masters sleep in huge mansions with many servants, the servants themselves sleep in basement rooms infested with cockroaches.  The rich are so far removed from the situation of the poor that they no longer even think of the poor as human.  When Balram receives a letter from his family, he asks to read it himself.  However, the Mongoose (his master’s brother) says “He won’t mind [me reading his letter].  He has no sense of privacy” (Adiga 162).  This desensitization allows the rich to continue to exploit everyone else.  Balram’s position in society, a personal servant to a wealthy man, allows him to uncover the immorality of the rich.   
At the same time, Balram’s perspective is one of yearning to live the life of the rich.  Balram makes clear to the reader how much servants long for a way out of poverty, yet cannot find it.  This desperation leads Balram himself to cheat his master by siphoning off gas for the car, taking the car to corrupt mechanics who overcharge and then split the extra with the chauffeur, and using the car as a taxi on the side when the master is away.  
Besides showing the immorality at both the top and the bottom, Balram’s informal, conversational first-person account makes the story engaging.  Readers feel like Balram is talking to them personally, even though the book is supposedly a series of letters addressed to the Chinese Premier.  The personal account of Balram makes the immoral choices of both the rich and the poor seem more understandable; they are the result of disparity in wealth, not general human evil.
Adiga uses dark humor frequently in The White Tiger to emphasize the immorality of the rich and the poor.  Balram gives many satirical accounts of immorality he encounters.  Describing voting fraud: “Balram is a vanished man, a fugitive, someone whose whereabouts are unknown to the police, right? Ha! The police know exactly where to find me.  They will find me dutifully voting on election day at the voting booth...I am India’s most faithful voter, and I still have not seen the inside of a voting booth” (Adiga 86).  Balram mocks the rich for their extravagance and corruption, but also mocks his fellow members of the servant class for their own cruelty.  When Balram goes home to visit his family, they chastise him for not sending enough money home.  Balram says sarcastically, “For the first time I can remember, I got more attention than the water buffalo” (Adiga 72).  Humor shows the many immoral choices the rich and the poor make due to their situation.  After all, it is bad things that are funny, not good things.
The humor in The White Tiger also emphasizes how much Balram relies on humor as a coping mechanism, both to cope with the effects of the immoral choices of the rich on him and with having to make immoral choices himself.  Balram had gotten his job as chauffeur to Mr. Ashok by revealing that Mr. Ashok’s former driver, Ram Persad, was actually Muslim.  Ram Persad had needed a job badly, so he had pretended he was Hindu and gotten a job with Mr. Ashok.  When Balram told Mr. Ashok about Ram Persad’s true identity, Ram Persad was immediately fired and Balram got Ram Persad’s job.  Though Balram admitted he felt bad, he was so desperate for a job, he felt he had no other choice.  One day when Mr. Ashok and his wife were patronizing Balram over his faith, Balram exaggerated his beliefs and pretended to make signs of respect to all sorts of features of the landscape.  He said, “They were convinced I was the most religious servant on earth. (Take that, Ram Persad!)” (Adiga 78).  Balram uses such dark questionable humor to come to terms with both the insults of the rich and the immoral choices he himself has made.  

Humor in The White Tiger also seems to make the story more digestible, except for some racist and sexist humor.  It is hard to read social commentaries because they expose many of the negative, immoral aspects of society.  Humor might make Adiga’s message more palatable.

There are many symbols and patterns of imagery in The White Tiger that emphasize the huge difference between the rich and the poor.  The main image is of the poor living in the “Darkness” and the rich living in the “Light.”  This metaphor shows how extreme the difference between being poor and being rich is.  “India is two countries in one: an India of Light, and an India of Darkness.  The ocean brings Light to my country.  Every place...near the ocean is well off.  But [the Ganges] river brings darkness to India—the black river” (Adiga 12).  
The images of the Black Fort and the Chandelier are extensions of the Light/Dark imagery.  The Black Fort is a huge forbidding ruin located on a hill by Balram’s village.  The Black Fort is a symbol of the extreme poverty that Balram is in.  One day Balram gets the courage to enter the Black Fort.  He says “I leaned out from the edge of the fort in the direction of my village...I spat. Again and again...Eight months later I slit Mr. Ashok’s throat” (Adiga 36).  Balram broke out of the Black Fort mentally when he spat on it from its the entranceway and broke out from the Black Fort physically when he killed his master and entered the “Light.”  The Black Fort emphasizes how desperate Balram feels.
The Chandelier is the opposite of the Black Fort.  The Chandelier is the gaudy light fixture that Balram has in his new office after he murders Mr. Ashok and starts his own company in Bangalore.  It represents the wealthy who Balram has joined through murdering his master and stealing his money.  Balram says, “It makes me happy to see the chandelier...Let me buy all the chandeliers I want” (Adiga 98).  Balram was so desperate for wealth that he not only murdered his master, but did so in the knowledge that his master’s family would take deadly revenge on his own family.  “I’ve got no family anymore. All I’ve got are chandeliers” (Adiga 97).  The Chandelier also emphasizes how desperate Balram felt to get out of poverty.  Balram says when he thinks of the devil he thinks of a little black figure climbing up the entranceway to a Black Fort.  “I see the little man...spitting at God again and again, as I watch the black blades of the midget fan slice the light from the chandelier again and again” (Adiga 75).  Balram associates himself with the little man, who is so desperate that he will defy God and associate with the devil to break out of the cycle of poverty.  The fan represents the little man and the light of the chandelier represents the wealthy.  The fan is “murdering” and “stealing from” the light of the chandelier.  Balram, represented by the fan, was in such a desperate situation that he saw murdering his master, represented by the chandelier, as an “entrepreneurial” act.
In The White Tiger, there are many images of humans living like animals.  Balram says “Let animals live like animals; let humans live like humans.  That’s my whole philosophy in a sentence” (Adiga 237).  Both the wealthy and the poor “live like animals” because they both make immoral choices, due to desensitization or desperation.  Balram recognizes this; he even calls the four corrupt landlords the Raven, the Wild Boar, the Buffalo, and the Stork.  Balram is also unable to “live like a human,” in his case because of the poverty and desperation he was born into.  Balram himself is represented by a white tiger.  A teacher told Balram “The white tiger. That’s what you are in this jungle” (Adiga 30).  The white tiger is a rare animal, as Balram is a rare man.  Balram managed to successfully break out of the cycle of poverty, but had to become a murderer to do so.  The poor of India are often referred to as roosters in a rooster coop.  The poor are kept in poverty despite their desperation to have a higher standard of living because to break out of the rooster coop would involve acting very immorally.  Balram says, “Can a man a man break out of the coop? What if one day, for instance, a driver took his employer’s money and ran...Only a man who is prepared to see his family destroyed—hunted, beaten...can break out of the coop” (Adiga 150).  The metaphor of the Rooster Coop emphasizes how immorality is encouraged through the large gap between the rich and the poor.

The end of The White Tiger emphasizes the immorality that results from vast disparity in wealth but also hints that things will improve.  Balram murdered, stole, and sacrificed his family to break out of the servant class.  He also bribed the police to help him set up his new chauffeuring business for call center workers in Bangalore.  In many ways Balram acted just like his former master Mr. Ashok as symbolized by Balram taking the name “Ashok” when he moved to Bangalore.  However, Balram changed when he moved to Bangalore and became a member of the upper class himself.  When one of Balram’s drivers, Mohammad Asif, accidentally killed a poor young boy while driving, Balram called the police.  The police then cleared Mohammad Asif of any charges because of Balram’s bribes, but Balram himself assumed responsibility for the accident and went to the family of the boy.  He offered them money and a job for their older son at his company.  Though Balram participated in corruption and certainly founded his company immorally, he tried to compensate the family of the boy and assumed responsibility for the accident.  Balram also says, “Once I was a driver to a master, but now I am a master of drivers.  I don’t treat them like servants—I don’t slap, or bully, or mock anyone.  I don’t insult any of them by calling them my ‘family,’ either.  They’re my employees, I’m their boss, that’s all” (Adiga 259).  Though the ending is not a perfectly happy ending, it seems hopeful.  Balram makes it out of poverty, but he does not become desensitized and distanced from where he came from, and this allows him to act morally more often.  He says, “Now, despite my amazing success story, I don’t want to lose contact with the places where I got my real education in life” (Adiga 259).  

The difference between the rich and the poor, Balram explains, is that the poor have no choice but to be immoral while the rich do have a choice.  “Allow me to illustrate the differences between Bangalore and Laxmangarh.  Understand...it is not as if you come to Bangalore and find that everyone is moral and upright here.  This city has its share of thugs and politicians.  It’s just that here, if a man wants to be good, he can be good.  In Laxmangarh, he doesn’t even have this choice” (Adiga 262).  In the future, Balram says Bangalore “might turn out to be a decent city where humans can live like humans and animals can live like animals” (Adiga 273).  The last lines of the novel accentuate again the justification of immorality through desperation.  Balram says “I’ll never say I made a mistake that night in Delhi when I slit my master’s throat...It was worthwhile to know, just for a day, just for an hour, just for a minute, what it means not to be a servant” (Adiga 276).  

The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga is a darkly humorous social commentary on modern India.  In his novel, Adiga shows how a large disparity in wealth can move people to make immoral choices whether they are wealthy or poor.  However, the novel ends on an optimistic note, with Balram both making it out of poverty and being able to make more moral choices.  As Balram would say, ha!

Literary Commentary on The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga

“One day Kusum found out about me and the fort. She followed me all the way from our home to the pond with the stones, and saw what I was doing. That night she told my father, “He just stood there gaping at the fort—just the way his mother used to. He is going to come to nothing good in life, I’ll tell you that right now.”

When I was maybe thirteen I decided to go up to the fort on my own. I waded into the pond, got to the other side, and climbed up the hill; just as I was on the verge of going in, a black thing materialized in the entranceway. I spun around and ran back down the hill, too frightened even to cry.

It was only a cow. I could see this from a distance, but I was too shaken up to go back.

I tried many more times, yet I was such a coward that each time I tried to go up, I lost my nerve and came back.

At the age of twenty-four, when I was living in Dhanbad and working in Mr. Ashok’s service as a chauffeur, I returned to Laxmangarh when my master and his wife went there on an excursion. It was a very important trip for me, and one I hope to describe in greater detail when time permits. For now, all I want to tell you is this: While Mr. Ashok and Pinky Madam were relaxing, having eaten lunch, I had nothing to do, so I decided to try again. I swam through the pond, walked up the hill, went into the doorway, and entered the Black Fort for the first time. There wasn’t much around—just some broken walls and a bunch of frightened monkeys watching me from a distance. Putting my foot on the wall, I looked down on the village from there. My little Laxmangarh. I saw the temple tower, the market, the glistening line of sewage, the landlords’ mansions—and my own house, with that dark little cloud outside—the water buffalo. It looked like the most beautiful sight on earth.

I leaned out from the edge of the fort in the direction of my village—and then I did something too disgusting to describe to you.

Well, actually, I spat. Again and again. And then, whistling and humming, I went back down the hill.

Eight months later, I slit Mr. Ashok’s throat” (Adiga 35-36).

On pages 35-36 of Aravind Adiga’s novel The White Tiger, the dominant impression is Balram’s shift from servitude to mastery.  This dominant impression is achieved through symbolism, connotations of the words, the shift in atmosphere, alliteration, parallelism, and imagery.  These literary devices work together to show an important turning point in the story of Balram Halwai.  This turning point also illustrates the main theme of The White Tiger.  Born into poverty, Balram’s desperation justified him killing his master to make the change from eternal servitude to mastery.  This passage describes the moment when Balram makes the decision to defy morality and social hierarchy by becoming a master instead of a servant.

In this passage there are multiple symbolic items and events that illustrate Balram’s shift from servitude to mastery.  The “Black Fort” is an imposing structure on a hill overlooking Balram’s village, Laxmangarh.  The “Black Fort” symbolizes the historical social hierarchy that Balram initially conforms to.  At first, Balram is too intimidated to enter the Black Fort, symbolizing how he cannot face defying the social class he was born into.  “When I was maybe thirteen I decided to go up to the fort on my own...just as I was on the verge of going in, a black thing materialized in the entranceway. I spun around and ran back down the hill, too frightened even to cry.  It was only a cow...”.  At the same time, Balram recognizes that the “Black Fort,” the social hierarchy, might not actually be as powerful as it seems.  Balram continues to persevere and try to enter the Black Fort.  “I tried many times, yet I was such a coward that each time I tried to go up, I lost my nerve and came back”.  Eventually, Balram enters the Black Fort and realizes that it is not so impressive.  He spits on the fort and his village and says, “Eight months later, I slit Mr. Ashok’s throat”.  When Balram entered the fort and recognized that it was not as intimidating as he thought, it symbolized his recognition that the social class system can be defied. When Balram realizes this he kills his master and makes the shift from servitude to mastery.  

The connotations of words in this passage indicate the shift from servitude to mastery.  Before Balram enters the Black Fort, the words of the passage connote powerlessness and servitude.  Balram is described as “gaping” at the Black Fort, at the power of the social hierarchy, suggesting that Balram is overcome by his powerlessness to the social hierarchy.  Balram describes himself as “ frightened” and a “coward”.  His own grandmother, Kusum, tells him “He is going to come to nothing good in life”.  Balram comes back to Laxmangarh not on his own terms, but only because his master returned and brought Balram with him, indicating that Balram is in servitude.  “I returned to Laxmangarh when my master and his wife went there on an excursion...While Mr. Ashok and Pinky Madam were relaxing, having eaten lunch, I had nothing to do, so I decided to try again [to enter the Black Fort]”.  Balram enters the Black Fort only when his master allows him.  However, once he enters the Black Fort, the connotations of the words change.  Balram recognizes the Black Fort is not as intimidating as he thought: “There wasn’t much around—just some broken walls and a bunch of frightened monkeys watching me from a distance”.  Now the the Black Fort is “frightened” of Balram, not the other way around.  Balram puts his foot “on the wall” of the Black Fort and looks down on his village possessively: “My little Laxmangarh”.  The connotation of “looking down on something” instead of “gaping up” at the Fort indicate that Balram now feels like he is in charge.  He even spits on the fort and his village, actions that connote contempt and disregard for the social hierarchy that keeps him in servitude.  Then he heads down the hill “whistling and humming,” connoting that he feels free and unencumbered by the social hierarchy.  

The change in the connotations of the words creates a shift in the atmosphere that supports the shift from servitude to mastery.  In the beginning the atmosphere is one of powerlessness and intimidation but at the end the atmosphere is one of purposeful power.  

The critical sentence that indicates the shift from servitude to mastery is accented by both alliteration and parallelism.  Balram says he “entered the Black Fort for the first time”.  This alliteration emphasizes that this is the “first” time Balram is entering the fort.  That moment is when Balram makes the shift from servitude to mastery.  Parallelism is also shown in the critical sentence: “I swam through the pond, walked up the hill, went into the doorway, and entered the Black Fort for the first time...".  The parallelism in this sentence creates a feeling of anticipation that leads to Balram literally crossing the threshold from servitude into mastery.  Together, parallelism and alliteration create a sentence that makes Balram’s crucial moment of change stand out.   

Imagery of Balram’s village reinforces Balram’s shift from servitude to mastery.  Balram recognizes that his village is beautiful in some ways.  The social hierarchy argues that the living conditions Balram was born into are good enough for him.  Balram acknowledges this when he says “I saw the temple tower, the market, the glistening line of sewage, the landlords’ mansions—

and my own house, with that dark little cloud outside—the water buffalo.  It looked like the most beautiful sight on earth”.  This combination of hyperbole and imagery show that Balram knows he could continue to live like he has been, yet he does not.  This imagery and hyperbole accentuates how Balram consciously made the decision to defy the social hierarchy.  He knew his village was beautiful in some ways and that his life was liveable but he still decides that he deserves better.  Spitting on his village that he called beautiful only a moment before, emphasizes that he has rejected servitude for mastery.
Lastly, the shocking ending of the passage cements the idea that Balram has shifted from servitude to mastery in this passage.  The passage (and the chapter) ends with “Eight months later, I slit Mr. Ashok’s throat”.  This ending is jolting and thus emphasizes that it was in this passage that Balram made the mental shift from servant to master that resulted in him murdering his master.
In this passage, Adiga describes Balram’s shift from servitude to mastery.  This is the passage where Balram decides he must murder his master or remain a servant forever.  Adiga’s book The White Tiger deals with precisely the morality and effects of the actions displayed in this passage.  It is a powerful idea and a controversial one that murder and other immoral actions can be justified by extreme circumstances like poverty.