I Love You Bro Play Analysis Theatre Essay

I Love You Bro Play Analysis Theatre Essay The La Boite Theatre Companys production of Adam J. A. Casss I Love You, Bro , directed by David Bethold, is a play which masterfully engages and captivates the audience. It effectively tells an enthralling tale of love, deceit and manipulation. The plays protagonist, Johnny, is a troubled teen who is desperate for love. Devoid of any power in reality, online chatrooms are his only escape. It is here, on the virtual stage, where Johnny meets, seduces and manipulates the unwitting Markymark, who through the lies of Johnny, becomes a tool in an incitement of murder. Although on the surface, I Love You, Bro may seem a twisted story of devious treachery, it is in fact a simple, yet tragic anecdote of a boy whose desire to be loved supersedes any other. The play successfully engrossed the audience through its skilled use of dramatic elements. The tension which existed in the play was well cultivated by the roles and relationships excellently portrayed by a single actor. Some of the succes s in this regard can be attributed to the highly creative use of the stage, and the combination of lighting and effects, designed by Renee Mulder, Carolyn Emerson and Guy Webster. Behind the many masks which he creates, Johnny (played by Leon Cain) himself is just as intriguing a character as any he invents. Coming from a world of domestic violence, lacking any who sincerely love him, it is little wonder that he reaches out in the only way he has available to him; virtually. Early on in the play, Johnny tells the audience he was never an outgoing personality; however, as the story develops, so too does Johnnys confidence. As the main protagonist, the story follows Johnnys struggle to connect with someone, and the gradual transformation of this struggle into an unhealthy obsession. The subject of this obsession is the oblivious teen footballer, Mark. When Mark first begins conversing online with Johnny, he mistakenly believes him to be a female. Johnny plays along, eager to satisfy his desire to be needed by someone. As time progresses, the relationship between the two grows exponentially, to the point wherein Johnny believes himself to be in love with Mark, wh o was still unaware that his online lover is in fact a younger male. Throughout the course of the play, Johnny conceived a multitude of spurious characters, all of whom served to further his connection with Mark. Initially, the chain of characters began with a simple error on Marks behalf. After mistakenly believing that Johnnys online alias AlbaJay was a female character, Jessica was born. Jessica was Johnnys first creation, and became his obsession when he came to the realisation that she could act as a conductor for reciprocated love. Jessica, although starting off fairly innocently and without any intention of harm, Johnny soon begins to conceive new characters to fuel his insatiable desire to feel as though he is cared about and attempts to achieve this with his creation of two new fictitious characters. These characters are Simon, Jessicas helpless, albeit fabricated younger brother and Stings, an intimidating bully. Johnny creates these people in order to heighten Marks feelings towards him by establishing an element of danger in the relationsh ip the two share. By putting Simon in a threatened position, and then using it to pressure Mark into a predicament wherein he has limited courses of action he can take, Johnny takes the game to a much higher level, and as a direct result, vastly increases the tension in the play. Similarly, the creation of Jane Bond and Agent 41579 serve similar purposes as Johnnys previous fabrications. Jane Bond and Agent 41579 both add to the danger involved in the romance, deepening the urgency of the connection between Mark and Johnny. In addition to this, Agent 41579 is similar to Jessica in that she acts as a magnet for attention and the affection of Mark. The establishment of the new relationship between Mark and Agent 41579 created a renewed level of tension after a lull in the play, and this was only increased as the plot continued and led to the attack on Johnny. This story is played out on a quite simplistic and minimalistic set designed by Renee Mulder. It consisted of an abstract stage, which was elevated in the upstage region to creatively act as a cyclorama onto which images and videos were projected. As well as this, the stage had a simple wire framed desk structure at its most downstage point. It was to this point that the entire stage was pointed towards and focussed on. This was because the desk and the computer which sat upon it were the pinnacle of Johnnys existence. His computer was the most important part of his life. The set was an accurate reflection of his world, and how it revolved around his online presence. The jagged and sharp edges of the stage also demonstrated the disjointed and shattered life which Johnny was a part of when not on his computer. The stage also worked well in cohesion with the use of a single actor. Being a small and uncluttered stage, the focus was always directed on Johnny and his actions, and this for ced the audience to engage with him and added significantly to the plays overall delivery. Another interesting aspect of the set was the wheeled chair which so often Johnny rolled around the stage on. The use of this chair to roll around stage showed Johnnys internal conflict and indecisiveness. On numerous occasions throughout the play, Johnny could be seen rolling around stage when faced with a difficult decision. This clearly showed his opposing and clashing opinions, a metaphor for his uncertainty as to which direction to take, and ultimately, his uncertainty in himself. The action of the play was effectively accentuated by lighting and effects. For the majority of the play, the stage was lit with an azure blue tinge. The lighting effects reflected Johnnys personal feelings at any certain time. A perfect example of this was seen when Stings took over Johnny. Stings was the darker side of Johnny, and the lighting of the production captured this aspect of him perfectly. Each time Stings appeared, the lights would immediately and without warning switch off from a light colour, and the stage would be bathed in almost total darkness, with only the slightest hints of light dancing around stage.In combination with this, a distinct whipping sound effect was played to indicate the rapid and brusque change into the alter ego. After the change had occurred, a low and menacing tone was played, personifying the insidious nature of Stings. Similarly, the azure colour which was present as Johnny took the guise of Jessica showed his softer, lighter side. These light ing and sound elements were creatively used to transmit both mood and personality to the audience, as were the simple images and occasional video images projected onto the cyclorama. Director David Berthold successfully manipulated the dramatic elements of distinct roles and relationships presented in Adam J. A. Casss I Love You, Bro. Consequently, the audience is able to connect on a very powerful level with this production. The play skillfully creates tension at key points throughout the plot, and by the timely balancing of this tension, the play was thoroughly engaging.

To what extent have UK Prime ministers become “presidential”?

There are a number of reasons that the UK’s prime ministers can be called presidential. For instance Blair and Thatcher were both dominant over their government they would often ignore what their cabinet said. The PM is also very much seen as the head of state Also the PM is very much a figure head and the media portrays him as the head of the party, the government and the party ideology. The PM if he or she has a majority in the House of Commons they can pretty much pass any law that they like as long as the whips are used to enforce that the party votes the way that the leader of the party wants. Also Tony Blair was a very dominant PM, he would take his cabinet’s opinions in to consideration but quite often he would ignore what his cabinet had said and do what he wanted. For instance some members of his cabinet resigned as ministers over the Iraq war because Blair would not listen to them. But there is also an argument to say that the UK’s PM s are not presidential for instance the PM is part of the legislature and is therefore accountable to the House of Commons instead of directly to the people whereas a President is voted for directly by the people so the president is directly accountable to the public. Although it could be argued that the PM is accountable to the people through the media for instance televised debates and coverage in broadsheet newspapers. The PM is very much a figurehead and this is the way that the PM is portrayed within the media, for instance when a parties policies fail or something goes wrong with the country it will invariably be blamed on the PM as he is portrayed as the head of the party and the government even if the thing that goes wrong has nothing to do with them they will still be blamed by the public and held accountable by the House of Commons. In this sense the PM is more of a president than a Prime Minister. On the other hand the legislature and the executive is not strictly separate because the PM is a member of the legislature before they are a member of the executive and they are chosen from the legislature, whereas a president can only be a member of one of those things. For instance the President can not sit in Congress or in the Senate as well as being President people can only sit in one. The real UK head of state is the Queen but this is a ceremonial role as it is the prime minister who has the power. When Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he wanted to give powers back to the Commons these included the power to declare war, he also wanted to curb the power of the whips and he wanted all select committees to be voted by MP s instead of chosen by the PM. In conclusion I would say that the Prime minister is presidential purely because of the amount of power that the PM has over the country, as long as he has a majority in the House of Commons then the PM can exercise all of his power and it is almost impossible to stop him the government outnumbers the other parties that will want to try and stop the legislation set out by the PM.

The Image of Fool in King Lear: from Page to Sage

The Fool – from text to screen. The concept of a fool in Shakespearean plays is nearly as popular as the very figure of a fool used to be in Middle Ages at royal courts and some private households of aristocrats. The characters that could be described as fools appear in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night (Feste) and As You Like It (Touchstone). And there is of course the most famous of the fools, named simply The Fool in Shakespeare’s King Lear – the one with reference to whom this essay is created. A fool, according to Encyclop? ia Britannica was a person, often retarded, handicapped, dwarfed or mad, kept on court for luck and amusement of his patron. Due to his questionable mental abilities he was given license to mock persons of nobility, even the king himself. The origins of his function are sought for in the tribal scapegoat, who served as a sacrifice alternative for the king. Probably for that reason he was endowed with some attributes prescribed to a king such as a bauble (mock scepter) and a motley coat. His entertaining function was marked by other attributes in his possession such as a coxcomb, bells and a horny or ass-eared hood.All those gadgets, apart from arousing amusement, served one more purpose – they made a jester stand out from all the other individuals. Even though some critics tend to perceive the Fool in King Lear as a character crucial to understanding of the play and the significance of particular characters, others are more inclined to categorize him as one of the minor characters. At some stage of King Lear’s development the figure of the Fool was even altogether removed from the play, which may constitute some indication of how different were the attitudes towards the importance of his presence in the play within the course of time.As far as transposition of the text of the play into the film script is concerned, it is particularly worth noticing that cinematic space juxtaposed to theatrical space s hows some vital dissimilarities, among which are different attitude of a producer towards presumable reactions of the audience, the supremacy of the camera’s angle over spectator’s inclination to see what takes their fancy and the possibility of creating more articulate spatial setting. Also G.Wilson Knight considers the screening of any play an outstandingly challenging quest and warns against two main failures that may occur in the production. The first one may be described as mechanical failure, when the director is trying to put the main emphasis on the melodrama, into which the play is turned, while the second one is described by the author as ‘the would-be ‘symbolical’ production’, in which some significant enigmatic and sometimes supernatural values are blurred or not displayed at all.He reports to have heard Juliet’s potion speech, which he found, by the cause of a thunder introduced arbitrarily by the scriptwriter, utterly dist urbed and demolished. He expressed a conviction, that Shakespeare would have arranged a thunder in that place, if that had been what he had intended to. Knight argues also that ‘the sounds – words and additional effects – are (.. ) given’ and all that a director or a screenwriter or particular actors are expected to do is to pour life into them and arrange a proper setting for them.So much for the possible area of scrutiny as far as some comparison between the text and the screen versions is put to question. Of course some temporal or verbal ellipses are inevitable as they are undeniably a part of producer’s license, as well as a kind of a landmark in every screen production, though the vital parts of the play should not be omitted in order to preserve the original character of the artwork.Having still some features of the analysed productions left to scrutinize, the focus may be put on the extratextual and non-verbal factors such as the costumes, t he age of the actors playing Fools, their sex, the overall attitude towards the outer world as well as their demeanour towards other characters in the play that is not strictly implied by the original text. Some leaps in text as far as they are not dictated by thrift in time of production may also prove indicatory for the moulding of the character of the Fool.If the text strays slightly from the original, this might also constitute an evidence of some deliberate interference within the character’s creation. Questions has been long posed what might be the actual age of the Fool. Maggie Williams is one of the advocates of the thesis that he ought to be presented as a young boy, which she justifies by Lear’s frequently addressing him as ‘boy’ and also by his vulnerability to poor weather conditions during the tempest, his fear at the sight of Edgar disguised as Poor Tom as well as his extraordinary attachment to Cordelia which proved itself in his pining afte r her departure .Williams’ conviction, though not isolated, is not entirely shared by some circles of literary critics and a number of producers, who tend to bestow the role of the Fool to more experienced and aged actors. Such is the case with both productions: King Lear, directed by Jonathan Miller released in 1982 and King Lear, directed by Trevor Nunn released in 2008. The character of the Fool is played in both of them by middle-aged actors: in Miller’s film it is Frank Middlemass born in 1919 and in Nunn’s film it is Sylvester McCoy born in 1943.Both actors were at their 60s at the time of each film being shot. In actuality the fool could not have been intended as a child (due to his frequent bawdy innuendos and banters), neither could he be equated to an old man, as it seems, but actually some screen versions of a play managed to picture him as one quite successfully. What can be inferred from the very text of the play is the fact that the Fool was the cl osest companion of the King.The evidence of that could be the fact of Lear’s desperate need for the Fool’s company, when he asks his servants to summon him four times in the act I scene 4 intermittently amid occupying himself with other affairs (interviewing Kent, then Oswald, then a Knight and at the end Oswald again), although, as he claims, he haven’t seen him for two days, which is not an extraordinarily long period of time. He also accompanies King from then on in every venture even in the worst conditions of the tempest until the end of act III scene 6, when he mysteriously disappears.Moreover, the text makes it evident, that the King and the Fool are in close intimacy, the indication of which is Lear’s constant addressing Fool as ‘my boy’, ‘lad’, ‘my pretty knave’ as also this line of his spoken during the storm: ‘Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart/ That’s sorry yet for thee. â€℠¢(3. 2. 70-71). Another clue derived from the text pertains to the Fool’s mental disposition. He is probably neither mad nor retarded in any way, which is marked by Kent’s words: ‘This is not altogether fool, my Lord’ after Fool had made it clear to the King that he had no more titles left but this of a fool.Also Gonerill seems not to underestimate Fool’s power in his actions taken against her in his many quips. She calls him ‘more knave than fool’ (I. 4. 269), which may imply that she lets him know that she can see through his witticisms and reveal his real intentions which basically come to dissuading King from trusting his daughters. This and other functions in the play, such as comforting Lear and presaging him from superfluous faith and expectations put in his daughters with aid of ‘folk-wisdom’ are ascribed to the Fool by S.L. Goldberg, who highlights also Fool’s passivity in the course of action and his pathos expressed by his loyalty and heightened feelings, being the spur of his actions. But Goldberg foreworns from over‘sentimentalizing’ Fool, as he is also ‘clear-eyed’ and knows that ‘facts and ideals are always and always will be at odds’, which he tries to express in his wry witticisms, for which Lear calls him a ‘bitter fool’ (I. 4. 119).His figure can be also perceived as a relic of ancient Greek chorus, commenting on other characters and the plot, but presumably his main function comes down to making exertions to entertain the king, or ,as Kent calls it in some moment of the play, ‘to out-jest his heart-struck injuries’. Some of these functions were amplified in particular cinematic productions and others were diminished or even expunged. This is to be analysed with reference to the abovementioned cinematic productions. Apparently in Miller’s King Lear the character of the Fool is more accentuated than in the other production.He is a kind of an old fellow, loyal to his master, who cares for his fate and is not able to come to terms with his fatal misstep of giving away his royal authority and his land to his ungrateful daughters and even worse error of disinheriting and repelling Cordelia. He acts as though he had a strong feeling of responsibility for the king and his providence and as he was striving for something more than just a mere profession of court jester. All his behaviour gives the impression that he assumes the pose of a fool solely in order to remain beside the king regardless the changeable circumstances.Being a court jester allows him to reproach the king, sometimes in extremely harsh words, which make the king look like an idiot. However, what is worth highlighting is the fact that he never does it to impress the king’s escort and other surrounding him people, but he addresses the king directly as though he was his personal counsellor. His own jokes do not amuse h im, what can be easily deduced from the fact of his ability of assuming a grave facial expression almost instantly after making some jests and fooling about.Perchance this alongside with uttering some statements unpleasant to king’s ears earns him an opinion of a ‘bitter fool’, as Lear calls him (I. 4. 119). Given this one may come to a conclusion that he forces himself to play the role of the fool as this seems to be the only way to rebuke the king and talk him through to common sense without falling out of favour as Kant did after speaking the words of truth to his seigneur. The case is utterly different with another Fool – the one played by Sylvester McCoy in Nunn’s film. He is by no means a sedate adviser caged in the uncomfortable disguise of a fool.He is a ‘fool-blooded’ fool, who actually enjoys his position on the court and aspires for nothing more. His confidentiality with the king is verily striking, especially when the specta tors see him sitting in Lear’s lap, patting his face, sleeking his hair or kissing him in a childlike manner. If the title ‘nuncle’ customarily used by court jesters in addressing the king sounds derisively spoken by Middlemass’ Fool, the same word articulated by McCoy sounds as though a child was addressing his real uncle. His jovial and at times childish behaviour contrasts with his bawdy innuendos and gestures.Unlike Middlemass’ Fool, he enjoys being the life and soul of a party, entertaining king’s escort and jesting with them. He is fond of making fool of himself, playing the spoons using them as castanets, singing and cheering others up. Moreover, he is not eager to put himself at risk. As he speaks to Goneril, he quiets himself down in order not to utter an offence. Also the last words, that Fool was meant to speak about Goneril at her court and within her presence were cut out. So were many other lines originally spoken by the Fool. T his omission sometimes results in Fool’s appearing to be talking nonsense.Passing over Fool’s lines may also have another effect: the Fool appears in the whole play as a character of secondary importance, whose only purpose is to entertain the king and his comrades. And he does it, deriving pleasure from it. As it has been illustrated, the approaches towards the Fool in literary critique and cinematography were numerous and sundry, some of them conventional and others more innovative, but definitely each one of them bore some intrinsic artistic values, which cannot be fully apprehended without scrupulous scrutiny, which couldn’t have been contained within the volume of these few pages.Nevertheless the character of the Fool in two analysed above productions was given a closer insight. Two actors performing the role of the Fool in collaboration with the directors of each production created two different images of this figure. One of them was an image of a wise old man, whose role of a king’s personal adviser and tutor required a disguise of a court jester; a ‘bitter fool’, whose witticisms were wry, acute, sardonical, but whose exertions were aimed at only one goal – to save the king: from ill-advised decisions, from madness, from despair.The other one was a full-blooded fool, whose fondness of playing for laughs and entertaining others was tangible and whose, sometimes shocking, intimacy with the king could be explained only by mental impairment. This proved that the creation of a character is not entirely and solely dependent on the source text of a play, but is largely affected by the artistic vision and the license of a producer as well as by the original and individual skills of an actor. Works cited: 1. Davies Anthony, Filming Shakespeare’s Plays.The Adaptations of Laurence Olivier, Orson Wells, Peter Brook and Akira Kurosawa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1994. 2. Encyclop? dia Britannica Online, s. v. â€Å"fool†, accessed May 27, 2012,http://www. britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/212748/fool. 3. Goldberg S. L. , An Essay on King Lear, Cambridge University Press, London, New York 1974. 4. King Lear, DVD, directed by Jonathan Miller (1982; British Broadcasting Corporation, Time-Life Television Productions) 5. King Lear, DVD, directed by Trevor Nunn (2008; Richard Price TV Associates Ltd. 6. Knight G. Wilson, Shakespearean Production with Especial Reference to the Tragedies, Faber and Faber LTD, London 1964. 7. Shakespeare William, The Tragedy of King Lear, Halio Jay L. ed. , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1997. 8. Williams, Maggie. Shakespeare Examinations. Ed. William Taylor Thom, M. A. Boston: Ginn and Co. , 1888. Shakespeare Online. 10 Aug. 2010. (27. 05. 2012) . Sara Wilczynska ——————————————– 1 ]. See for exampl e: Williams, Maggie. Shakespeare Examinations. Ed. William Taylor Thom, M. A. Boston: Ginn and Co. , 1888. Shakespeare Online. 10 Aug. 2010. (27. 05. 2012) . [ 2 ]. See for example: Goldberg S. L. , An Essay on King Lear, Cambridge University Press, London, New York 1974, pp. 84-92. [ 3 ]. i. e. in Nahum Tate’s amended version of King Lear from 1681; see: Introduction to: Shakespeare William, The Tragedy of King Lear, Halio Jay L. ed. , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1997, p. 36. [ 4 ].See: Davies Anthony, Filming Shakespeare’s Plays. The Adaptations of Laurence Olivier, Orson Wells, Peter Brook and Akira Kurosawa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1994, p. 8. [ 5 ]. Ibidem. [ 6 ]. Knight G. Wilson, Shakespearean Production with Especial Reference to the Tragedies, Faber and Faber LTD, London 1964, p. 47. [ 7 ]. Ibidem, p. 54. [ 8 ]. Ibidem, p. 48. [ 9 ]. Op. cit. Williams, Maggie. Shakespeare Examinations†¦ [ 10 ]. See: Shakespeare William, The Tragedy of King Lear: ‘Where’s my knave? my fool?Go you and call my fool hither’ (I. 4. 38); ‘Where’s my fool’ (I. 4. 42); ‘But where’s my fool? ’ (I,4. 60-61); ‘Go you, call hither my fool’ (I. 4. 66) [ 11 ]. Op. cit. Goldberg S. L. , An Essay on King Lear†¦ , pp 90-91. [ 12 ]. Ibidem, p. 90. [ 13 ]. Ibidem. [ 14 ]. Ibidem. [ 15 ]. It becomes particularly visible when the Fool says to the king: ‘If thou wert my fool, nuncle, I’d have thee beaten for being old before thy time. ’. When Lear asks for the explanation, Fool replies: ‘Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise’ (I. 5. 33-36) [ 16 ].As in the case when he complains at being whipped for holding his ‘peace’ (meaning being silent in contradistinction to telling truth or telling lies as his earlier words suggest), speaking which he reaches to his crotch, as if he was peeing . [ 17 ]. The words that spoken by the Fool could have enraged Goneril were such: ‘A fox, when one has caught her,/ And such a daughter,/ Should sure to the slaughter,/ If my cap can buy a halter’ – McCoy’s Fool does not speak these words, as he probably is intended by the director as a harmless and joyful character. [ 18 ].Like when he says : ‘All that follow their noses are led by their eyes but blind men, and there’s not a nose among twenty but can smell him that’s stinking’ (2. 4. 63-65) as an explanation for why Kent should be put in the stocks for asking for the reason of King’s escort being so diminished. The rest of the lines from this speech is simply left out, so that it may look like the Fool was talking poppycock. The same situation occurs a while earlier when Fool declares with a blank stare: ‘Winter’s not gone yet, if the wild geese fly that way’ (2. 4. 43). Similarly the rest of the lines is left out.

Hook the Mouse to Catch Events Outside an Application

Learn how to track the mouse activity even when your Delphi application is not active, sits in the tray or does not have any UI at all. By installing a system-wide (or global) mouse hook you can monitor what the user is doing with the mouse and act accordingly. What Is a Hook and How Does It Work? In short, a hook is a (callback) function you can create as part of a DLL (dynamic link library) or your application to monitor the goings on inside the Windows operating system.There are 2 types of hooks — global and local. A local hook monitors things happening only for a specific program (or thread). A global hook monitors the entire system (all threads). To create a global hook you need 2 projects, 1 to make the executable file and 1 to make a DLL containing the hook procedure. Our article on working with keyboard hooks from Delphi explains how to intercept the keyboard input for controls that cannot receive the input focus (like TImage). Hooking the Mouse By design, the movement of the mouse is restricted by the size of your desktop screen (including the Windows Task Bar). When you move the mouse to the left/right/top/bottom edge, the mouse will stop — as expected (if you do not have more that one monitor). Heres an idea for the system-wide mouse hook: If for example, you want to move the mouse to the right side of the screen when it moves toward the left edge (and touches it), you might write a global mouse hook to reposition the mouse pointer. You start by creating a dynamic link library project. The DLL should export two methods: HookMouse and UnHookMouse. The HookMouse procedure calls the SetWindowsHookEx API passing the WH_MOUSE for the first parameter — thus installing a hook procedure that monitors mouse messages. One of the parameters to the SetWindowsHookEx is your callback function Windows will call when there is a mouse message to be processed: SetWindowsHookEx(WH_MOUSE, HookProc, HInstance,0) ; The last parameter (value 0) in the SetWindowsHookEx defines we are registering a global hook. The HookProc parses the mouse related messages and sends a custom message (MouseHookMessage) to our test project: function HookProc(nCode: Integer; MsgID: WParam; Data: LParam): LResult; stdcall;var   Ã‚   mousePoint: TPoint;   Ã‚   notifyTestForm : boolean;   Ã‚   MouseDirection : TMouseDirection; begin   Ã‚   mousePoint : PMouseHookStruct(Data)^.pt;   Ã‚   notifyTestForm : false;   Ã‚   if (mousePoint.X 0) then   Ã‚   begin   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Windows.SetCursorPos(-2 Screen.Width, mousePoint.y) ;   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   notifyTestForm : true;   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   MouseDirection : mdRight;   Ã‚   end;....  Ã‚   if notifyTestForm then   Ã‚   begin   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   PostMessage(FindWindow(TMainHookTestForm, nil), MouseHookMessage, MsgID, Integer(MouseDirection)) ;   Ã‚   end;  Ã‚   Result : CallNextHookEx(Hook,nCode,MsgID,Data) ;end; Tip: Read the Win32 SDK Help files to find out about the PMouseHookStruct record and the signature of the HookProc function. Note: A hook function does not need to send anything anywhere - the PostMessage call is used only to indicate that the DLL can communicate with the outer world. Mouse Hook "Listener" The MouseHookMessage message is posted to your test project — a form named TMainHookTestForm. Youll override the WndProc method to get the message and act as needed: procedure TMainHookTestForm.WndProc(var Message: TMessage) ;begin   Ã‚   inherited WndProc(Message) ;  Ã‚   if Message.Msg HookCommon.MouseHookMessage then   Ã‚   begin   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   //implementation found in the accompanying code   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Signal(TMouseDirection(Message.LParam)) ;   Ã‚   end;end; Of course, when the form is created (OnCreate) you call the HookMouse procedure from the DLL, when it gets closed (OnDestroy) you call the UnHookMouse procedure. Note: Hooks tend to slow down the system because they increase the amount of processing the system must perform for each message. You should install a hook only when necessary, and remove it as soon as possible.