One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Shawshank Redemption Essays

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Shawshank Redemption Essays One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Shawshank Redemption Paper One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Shawshank Redemption Paper Essay Topic: The Shawshank Redemption Contrasts in characterisation are employed throughout Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption to explore key ideas, as well as fundamental themes of confinement, oppression, and sacrifice. Contrast in characterisation is plainly evident between the protagonists and antagonists of the respective texts, but perhaps more specifically in the contrast that occurs as each author develops their narrators; Kesey’s ‘Bromden’ and Darabont’s ‘Red’. Both narrators experience a profound transformation, which becomes clear when contrasting their characters at the beginning to that of the end of the two texts. Bromden’s mental illness is prominent within the first half of Kesey’s text, but towards the completion of the novel has transformed to a condition of psychological strength with a heightened appreciation for life. Both authors rely heavily on their protagonists in order to provide the inspiration for this change. Kesey makes use of imagery and symbolism, to explore the idea that individuality is a powerful motivator. Darabont utilises a similar catalyst for change as well as repetition; yet as a visual text, he also employs light and sound effects to explore the idea that a leader is a provider of hope. Red is unwittingly influenced by protagonist Andy Dufresne. Prior to Dufresne’s arrival, Red is presented as both cynical and dry, an institutionalised man unwilling to waste energy on hope; yet finds ‘salvation from within’ in the closing stages of The Shawshank Redemption. Kesey and Darabont use contrasts to explore core themes and ideologies, whilst invoking the audience’s sense of independence and faith. In both texts, the narrators embody changes that gradually augment the reader’s understanding of the resultant effects of oppression. Kesey’s narrator, Bromden, describes the oppression associated with ward life through the use of simile to depict its mechanical nature and lack of individuality. This absence of humanity is the philosophy of Nurse Ratched, a domineering antagonist intent on creating a pure and pallid world for the ‘treatment’ of her patients. ‘The Big Nurse tends to get real put out if something keeps her outfit from running like a smooth, accurate, precision-made machine†¦. ’ However, this routine of maintaining order is shattered upon protagonist, Randall McMurphy’s, committal to the ward. This arrival of individuality instantly brings a vibrant atmosphere to the whitewashed walls of Ratched’s ward. A similar change is evident in The Shawshank Redemption where Darabont utilises voiceovers to convey Red’s initial perception of protagonist, Andy Dufresne, ‘He had a quiet way about him, a walk and a talk that just wasnt normal around here’. The transformation in both Bromden’s and Red’s character is not immediately apparent. Weeks pass before ‘the fog’, symbolic of Bromden’s mental illness begins to clear; and similarly Red remains fearful for years about the likely damage of false hope. Darabont conveys Red’s aversion towards the notion of hope through the use of repetition, ‘Hope? Let me tell you something, my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane. It’s got no use on the inside. You better get used to that idea’. Kesey and Darabont both ensure that there is a prolonged contrast in the characterisation of their central characters, allowing the audience to appreciate the subtle but increasing influence over time that the two protagonists have on the narrators. Darabont relies on the use of his narrator, Red, similar to Kesey’s use of Bromden; primarily to explore fundamental ideas and themes of confinement and sacrifice. The audience grapples with the cruel nature of confinement based on Red’s recounts of his and Dufresne’s experiences in Shawshank prison. Additionally, it is conceded by Darabont that Red’s blatant rejection of hope is indicative of Shawshank Prison’s institutionalising effect, ‘These walls are funny, first you hate them, then you start to get used to them. Eventually it gets so you rely on them. That’s institutionalised. ’ Dufresne unintentionally influences Red’s change in persona, which is quite unlike McMurphy’s extroverted behaviour in Kesey’s novel, ‘Nobody’s sure if this barrel-chested man with the scar and the wild grin is play-acting or if he’s crazy enough to be just like he talks†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢. Dufresne provides the inmates, but particularly Red, with hope through scenes where he sacrifices himself for the benefit of others; these include the roof tarring and phonograph incidents. Bright lighting is used as a focal element in order to demonstrate a contrasting, optimistic atmosphere; reflective of the changes occurring within Red. Likewise, McMurphy alters Bromden by demonstrating what true sacrifice is when he undergoes repeated Electro Shock Therapy sessions; allowing Kesey to explore imagery and symbolism associated with the biblical allusion, ‘wearing a crown of thorns’. Both authors present their respective premises successfully through the narrators’ contrast in characterisation, whilst presenting a common belief that freedom requires sacrifice. The pronounced transformation in the narrators is demonstrated through techniques unique to the respective texts, as well as the distinct use of contrasts. Melodic music creates a buoyant atmosphere in the closing scene of The Shawshank Redemption, with the culmination in contrast of Red’s character. The use of repetition is once again featured in order to demonstrate Dufresne’s effect on Red, specifically his newfound ability to hope, ‘I hope I can make it across the border. I hope to see my friend, and shake his hand. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope’. Similarly, by the completion of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Kesey makes it clear, through the use of a cliched simile, that McMurphy’s flair for instilling self worth has allowed Bromden to truly live again, and escape the daily drudgery of ward life, â€Å"I felt like I was flying. Free. Nobody bothers coming after an AWOL, I knew†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Contrasting Bromden’s character from beginning to the end of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest allows the audience to examine Kesey’s idea that individuality is a powerful motivator. Darabont’s ideology that a leader is a provider of hope is portrayed through repetition, sound effects, and the contrast in Red’s character. Kesey and Darabont both present their respective ideas through contrast in characterisation, yet in very different ways. This disparity is primarily due to the difference in text types; resulting in Kesey’s reliance on the literary techniques of imagery and symbolism, and Darabont’s deliberate use of light and sound. Though the narrators are of critical importance in portraying their own transformations, the protagonists instigate the change and consequently develop the author’s ideologies with equal significance. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Shawshank Redemption share a vast number of similarities in relation to their themes, whilst depicting divergent meaning due to the differing ideologies of the respective authors. Kesey’s and Darabont’s use of contrasts within the narrators supports the ideas present within the texts; allowing the audience to formulate their own beliefs about the importance of individuality and hope.

Two Party System - Why Democrats and Republicans Win

Two Party System - Why Democrats and Republicans Win The two party system is firmly rooted in American politics and has been since the first organized political movements  emerged in the late 1700s. The two party system in the United States is now dominated by the Republicans and the Democrats. But through history the  Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, then the Democrats and the Whigs, have represented opposing political ideologies and campaigned against each other for seats at the local, state and federal levels. No third-party candidate has ever been elected to the White House, and very few have won seats in either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. The most notable modern exception to the two party system is U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a socialist whose campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination invigorated liberal members of the party. The closest any independent presidential candidate has come to being elected to the White House was  billionaire Texan Ross Perot, who won 19 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 election. So why is the two party system unbreakable in the United States? Why do Republicans and Democrats hold a lock on elected offices at all levels of government? Is there any hope for a third party to emerge or independent candidates to gain traction despite election laws that make it difficult for them to get on the ballot, organize and raise money?   Here are four  reasons the two party system is here to stay for a long, long time. 1. Most Americans Are Affiliated With a Major Party Yes, this is the most obvious explanation for why the two party system remains solidly intact: Voters want it that way. A majority of Americans is registered with  the Republican and the Democratic parties, and thats been true throughout modern history, according to public-opinion surveys conducted by the Gallup organization. It is true that the portion of voters who now consider themselves independent of either major party is larger than either the Republican and Democratic blocs alone. But those independent voters are disorganized and rarely reach a consensus on the many third-party candidates; instead, most independents tend to lean toward one of the major parties come election time, leaving only a small portion of truly independent, third-party voters. 2. Our Election System Favors a Two Party System The American system of electing representatives at all levels of government makes it almost impossible for a third party to take root. We have what are known as single-member districts in which there is only one victor. The winner of the popular vote in all 435 congressional districts, U.S. Senate races and state legislative contests  takes office, and the electoral losers get nothing. This winner-take-all method fosters a two-party system and differs dramatically from proportional representation elections in European democracies.   Duverger’s Law, named for the French sociologist Maurice Duverger, states that a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system ...  Elections determined by a majority vote on one ballot literally pulverize third parties (and would do worse to fourth or fifth parties, if there were any; but none exist for this very reason). Even when a single ballot system operates with only two parties, the one that wins is favored, and the other suffers. In other words, voters tend to choose candidates who actually have a shot at winning instead of throwing their votes away on someone who will only get a small portion of the popular vote. By contrast, proportional representation elections held elsewhere in the world allow for more than one candidate to be chosen from each district, or for the selection of at-large candidates. For example, if the Republican candidates win 35 percent of the vote, they would control 35 percent of the seats in the delegation; if Democrats won 40 percent, they would represent 40 percent of the delegation; and if a third party such as the Libertarians or Greens won 10 percent of the vote, they would get to hold one in 10 seats. The basic principles underlying proportional representation elections are that all voters deserve representation and that all political groups in society deserve to be represented in our legislatures in proportion to their strength in the electorate. In other words, everyone should have the right to fair representation, the advocacy group FairVote states. 3. Its Tough for Third Parties to Get on the Ballot Third-party candidates have to clear greater hurdles to get on the ballot in many states, and its difficult to raise money and organize a campaign when youre busy gathering tens of thousands of signatures. Many states have closed primaries instead of open primaries, meaning only registered Republicans and Democrats can nominate candidates for the general election. That leaves third-party candidates at a significant disadvantage. Third party candidates have less time to file paperwork and must collect a greater number of signatures than do major party candidates in some states. 4. There Are Just Too Many Third Party Candidates There are third parties out there. And fourth parties. And fifth parties. There are, in fact, hundreds of small, obscure political parties and candidates who appear on ballots across the union in their names. But they represent a broad spectrum of political beliefs outside of the mainstream, and placing them all in a big tent would be impossible. In the 2016 presidential election alone, voters had dozens of third-party candidates to choose from if they were dissatisfied with Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. They could have voted instead for libertarian Gary Johnson; Jill Stein of the Green Party;  Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party; or Better for Americas Evan McMullin. There were socialist candidates, pro-marijuana candidates, prohibition candidates, reform candidates. The list goes on. But these obscure candidates suffer from a lack of  consensus, no common ideological  thread running through all of them. Simply put, theyre too splintered and disorganized to be credible alternatives to the major-party candidates.