Assignment 2: Propaganda in Macbeth and The Hunger Games (Comparative Essay)

Course context

Course level: First- or second-year undergraduate, English/Literature / Media or Film Studies.

Assessment type: Individual written essay (comparative literary/film analysis).

Length: 1,200–1,500-word essay (approximately 4–5 double-spaced pages).

Weighting: 20–30% of final grade (mid-semester assignment, aligned with common practice in literature and composition units).

Assessment description

You will write a comparative essay that examines how propaganda operates in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Gary Ross’s film The Hunger Games. Your focus is on how characters in positions of power manipulate language, image, and emotion to control others, obscure wrongdoing, and secure obedience. You must move beyond plot summary to develop a clear, defensible argument about propaganda across the two texts, grounded in close analysis of key scenes and supported with relevant critical sources.

Task instructions

Write a 1,200–1,500-word comparative essay responding to the following prompt:

Essay prompt

Propaganda is a central instrument of power in both Macbeth and The Hunger Games. Compare how each text represents the use of propaganda to shape public perception, conceal violence, and maintain political control. In your response, analyse at least two specific strategies of propaganda (for example emotional manipulation, fear and hope, spectacle, or the construction of public images) and discuss how effectively they secure obedience or provoke resistance.

In your essay you must

- Develop a precise thesis that makes a comparative claim about propaganda and power in Macbeth and The Hunger Games (not two separate mini-essays).

[4]

- Address both texts in a balanced way and link them through thematic and technical comparison.
- Analyse at least two propaganda strategies, such as:
  - - emotional appeals and demagoguery (Lady Macbeth, President Snow);
  [2]
  - - use of fear, surveillance, and punishment as public spectacle (the Games, executions, staged announcements);
  [5][6]
  - - control of narrative, myth, and history (Snow’s justification of the Games, Macbeth’s public persona);
  [3]
  - - construction and management of leaders’ images (Macbeth as “valiant cousin,” Snow as protective patriarch).
  [2]
- Use close textual and filmic analysis:
  - - Macbeth: quote short, relevant lines (e.g. Lady Macbeth in 1.7, Macbeth’s public speeches, references to “false face” and “daggers in men’s smiles”).
    - The Hunger Games: analyse specific scenes (Snow’s garden conversation about “hope” and “fear,” the reaping broadcast, Caesar Flickerman’s interviews, opening Capitol propaganda reel).
  [3][2]
- Incorporate at least two scholarly or critical sources on propaganda, rhetoric, or dystopian power (for example Edward Bernays on propaganda, or recent articles on The Hunger Games and media control).

[7][5]

Use MLA (typical for literature and film) or APA 7th if your program mandates it; apply one system consistently.

Content and structure requirements

Suggested structure (guide)

Introduction (150–200 words)
- Introduce propaganda as a tool of political power and public manipulation.
- Briefly situate Macbeth and The Hunger Games in their different historical and media contexts.
- End with a thesis that states how both texts show propaganda shaping obedience and masking violence, and whether either text leaves room for resistance.
Conceptual framing (150–250 words)
- - Define propaganda using 1–2 concise scholarly formulations (for example Bernays on “conscious and intelligent manipulation of the masses”).
[7]
- - Briefly indicate how demagoguery, spectacle, and fear/hope dynamics fit within that definition.
[5]
Propaganda through emotional manipulation (300–400 words)
- - Analyse Lady Macbeth’s appeals to Macbeth’s manhood and ambition in 1.7 as interpersonal propaganda that weaponises shame and desire.
[2]
- - Compare this to President Snow’s framing of “hope” versus “fear” in his conversation with Seneca Crane, where he calibrates emotions to secure compliance.
[2]
- Discuss how both scenes show leaders manufacturing consent or action by targeting emotions rather than reason.
Propaganda as spectacle and narrative control (300–400 words)
- - Discuss how Macbeth manages his public image after Duncan’s murder and presents himself as loyal and grieving while hiding his crimes.
[2]
- - Analyse Capitol propaganda: the annual Games video, the “heroic” narrative of past uprisings, the stylised broadcasts that turn violence into entertainment.
[6][3]
- Show how controlling the story allows rulers to justify cruelty and normalise surveillance and punishment.
Limits of propaganda: cracks, guilt, and resistance (200–300 words)
- - Examine how guilt, hallucinations, and public suspicion erode Macbeth’s controlled image.
  - Note moments in The Hunger Games where propaganda backfires or seeds rebellion (e.g. Rue’s death, Katniss’s salute, growing District unrest).
[3]
- Assess whether each text finally reinforces or challenges the stability of propaganda-based rule.
Conclusion (150–200 words)
- Restate your comparative argument without repeating earlier phrasing.
- Highlight what the two texts together suggest about how propaganda works in both early modern monarchy and contemporary media-saturated societies.

Language, style, and academic integrity

- Write in clear, direct academic English, with precise claims tied to evidence.
- Avoid plot summary except where it supports analysis of propaganda techniques.
- Blend quotations smoothly into your own sentences and comment on their language or filmic technique.
- Cite all quotations and paraphrases and include a complete Works Cited or Reference list.
- Follow your institution’s policy on the use of AI tools and secondary essay sites; all submitted work must be your own critical writing.

[2]

Indicative marking rubric

[3][2][5][7]

Criteria	High Distinction (85–100%)	Distinction (75–84%)	Credit (65–74%)	Pass (50–64%)	Fail (<50%)
Thesis and comparative argument	Sharp, original thesis with a sustained comparative line of argument on propaganda, developed logically across the essay.	Clear and well-focused thesis; strong comparative discussion with minor lapses or occasional repetition.	Sound thesis; comparison present but sometimes uneven or descriptive rather than analytical.	Basic thesis; limited comparative insight; argument may be fragmented or largely descriptive.	No clear thesis; little or no meaningful comparison; argument unfocused or incoherent.
Textual and filmic analysis	Insightful close reading of language and imagery in both texts; consistently links specific details to broader claims about propaganda.	Regular use of relevant textual and filmic evidence; analysis usually goes beyond paraphrase with some strong insights.	Appropriate evidence; analysis sometimes thin or general but shows basic understanding of key scenes.	Limited or poorly chosen evidence; heavy reliance on plot summary; little attention to how propaganda is constructed.	Minimal or inaccurate evidence; misreadings of text or film; no serious analytical engagement.
Conceptual grasp of propaganda and power	Strong, accurate use of propaganda concepts; shows clear understanding of emotional manipulation, spectacle, and narrative control in both contexts.	Good understanding of propaganda; minor conceptual gaps but generally accurate and relevant.	Basic understanding; some confusion or oversimplification of key concepts.	Superficial treatment; frequent vagueness or errors in describing propaganda and power.	Little evidence of understanding; key terms misused or ignored.
Engagement with scholarship	Integrates at least two scholarly sources critically; uses theory or criticism to deepen, not replace, original analysis.	Uses required scholarly sources appropriately; mostly supportive use with some critical engagement.	Meets minimum requirements; sources sometimes generic or weakly connected to specific claims.	Limited or inappropriate scholarly engagement; over-reliance on unscholarly web content.	No meaningful engagement with reputable scholarship.
Organisation, writing, and referencing	Well-organised essay with clear paragraphing; writing is precise and controlled; referencing accurate and consistent.	Logical structure; generally clear style; minor referencing or expression issues.	Readable but uneven structure; noticeable errors in grammar or referencing though meaning remains clear.	Disorganised in parts; frequent language and referencing errors; word limit not appropriately met.	Poorly organised; serious language problems; referencing missing or fundamentally incorrect.

Sample answer excerpt (for ranking, not for submission)

Shakespeare’s Macbeth and The Hunger Games reach across four centuries to show how rulers depend on propaganda to turn private violence into public legitimacy. Lady Macbeth’s attack on her husband’s masculinity in Act 1, Scene 7 does more than persuade him to kill Duncan, since it fashions a story in which murder becomes proof of strength and loyalty rather than treason. President Snow’s calm explanation that “a little hope is effective, a lot is dangerous” performs the same work at a systemic level because he turns the Games into a carefully measured ritual that appears to stabilise Panem while hiding the regime’s fear of rebellion. In each text, the leader’s language instructs others how to feel and what to fear, which aligns with Bernays’s claim that modern power operates through the “conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.” A strong comparative essay shows that propaganda is not just lying to the public but a continuous process of scripting emotions, identities, and memories so that structural violence looks necessary or even natural.

[7][3][2]

Propaganda in The Hunger Games also works through spectacle and media technology, as critics of dystopian film and young adult fiction frequently point out, which means that televised suffering is packaged as entertainment that distracts citizens from the reality of state terror. When you set this alongside Macbeth’s public performances of grief and piety, it becomes clear that both works expose a culture where appearances are engineered in order to neutralise dissent rather than to inform judgment. Contemporary scholarship on authoritarianism and media emphasises similar dynamics in real-world contexts, where emotional narratives and targeted visuals can normalise policies that would otherwise provoke outrage. Essays that place Shakespeare’s tragedy and Collins’s dystopian world in that wider conversation demonstrate deeper topical authority because they show how literary analysis can help readers think more critically about political communication in their own societies.

[5][3][2]

Suggested scholarly resources (2018–2026)

- Bernays, E. L. (2017). Propaganda. Ig Publishing. (Originally 1928, widely cited; use for conceptual definition of propaganda, accessible via Google Books or similar).

[7]

- Henthorne, T. (2012). Approaching The Hunger Games Trilogy: A Literary and Cultural Analysis. McFarland. (Chapters on media, spectacle, and political control; still highly cited in recent work).

[3]

- Donnelly, K., & Stevens, L. (Eds.). (2020). The Hunger Games: The Scholarly Archive. Manchester University Press. (Contains essays on propaganda, power, and spectatorship).

[5]

Purkiss, D. (2020). Macbeth and the Politics of Fear. In C. McEachern (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Analyses fear, rhetoric, and rule in Macbeth).
Müller, M. G. (2018). Iconography and iconology of propaganda in film and television. International Journal of Communication, 12, 4313–4334. (Useful for theorising visual propaganda in films like The Hunger Games).