Taming vs. Miss Representation An exploration of voice, agency and power in modern times. Over the past weeks, you have spent time studying Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. During this time, the class has discussed the interaction of the various narrative elements and important quotations within the play. Now we will watch Miss Representation, a documentary that debuted in 2011 focusing on women in the media. As you very carefully watch Miss, take point-form notes on the piece. Specifically, search for similarities between what it is saying about our modern society, and Shakespeare’s quite obviously misogynistic society as shown throughout Shrew. Once you identify a similarity, think of what specific textual evidence (6-8) from the play that you could use for support. This paper must demonstrate a sophisticated and thorough understanding of both the original piece and the modernized piece by using quotations from the original play and moments from the film. I then want you to also consider and include your experiences of our modern day society (local and global). It’s true that this is an exercise that will use the Feminist Theoretical “lens,” however it will do so in an informal manner. In your paper, think about the idea of power (what is it, who has it, how does one achieve it) as shown in the two works and society. Also think about voice (While everyone can speak, not everyone has a voice in this world). Essentially, this is a personal and creative paper that explores ideas and connections between literature and society. t least 2 pages double spaced in length. Application Communication Thinking Know R Level 1 (50-59%) Level 2 (60-69%) Level 3 (70-79%) Level 4 (80-100%) Limited knowledge of both works and a sophistication in points/connections to society Limited effectiveness in providing relevant proof from both texts. Significance of similarities is limited Limited sophisticated discussion occurs throughout Some knowledge of both works and a sophistication in points/connections to society Some effectiveness in relevant proof from both texts. Significance of similarities is somewhat clear and sophisticated Some sophisticated discussion occurs throughout Demonstrates considerable knowledge of both works and a sophistication in points/connections to society Considerable effectiveness in providing relevant proof from both texts. Significance of similarities is considerably clear and sophisticated Considerably sophisticated discussion occurs throughout Demonstrates thorough knowledge of both works and a sophistication in points/connections to society Thorough effectiveness in providing relevant proof from both texts. Significance of similarities is thoroughly clear and sophisticated Thoroughly sophisticated discussion occurs throughout Limited communication of ideas/sophisticated writing (flow, paragraphs, title) Limited effectiveness in spelling and grammar Limited effectiveness in using proper intext referencing (MLA) format Limited accuracy in formatting (MLA) the works-cited Limited planning and perfecting (rough / peer edits) Somewhat communicates ideas/sophisticated writing (flow, paragraphs, title) Some effectiveness in spelling and grammar Some effectiveness in using proper intext referencing (MLA) format Some accuracy in formatting (MLA) the works-cited Some planning and perfecting (rough / peer edits) Clearly communicates ideas/sophisticated writing (flow, paragraphs, title) Considerable effectiveness in using accurate conventions of spelling and grammar Very clearly communicates ideas/sophisticated writing (flow, paragraphs, title) Thorough effectiveness in using accurate conventions of spelling and grammar Considerable effectiveness in using proper in-text referencing (MLA) format Considerable effectiveness in accurately formatting (MLA) the works-cited Considerable amount of planning and perfecting (rough / peer edits) Thorough effectiveness in using proper in-text referencing (MLA) format Thorough effectiveness in accurately formatting (MLA) the works-cited Through amount of planning and perfecting (rough / peer edits)