Tuesday, 11 May 2004 04:43 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineGood news: today I finished all the work for one of my courses, so only four courses to go. Bad news: the paper due Friday (no extension possible) has a minimum length three pages longer than I thought, and I'm not sure how to approach it. Better news: the subject of my final presentation in Shakespeare and Philosophy was interesting, so I'll share.
After writing our research papers, we each discuss and evaluate in class one of the critical essays. I take a lot of interest in villains nowadays, so I focused on Iago. I knew beforehand that every villain in literature has a defender to some degree among critics. Sure enough, Shelia Rose Bland's "How I Would Direct Othello" makes the claim that the Bard meant the play as a comedy, with Iago as the hero.
I did not dismiss the claim outright. The full title does not include "The Tragedy of." Its success as a tragedy does not prove it so: The Manchurian Candidate succeeds greatly as a thriller but was planned as a comedy. It's been said that tragedy is "failed comedy," and indeed, Shakespeare's later plays demonstrate a difficulty in categorization. The hero need not be virtuous. The most important distinction is not the amount of humor, but the presence of a "happy ending."
Bland actually swayed me at first with the sheer volume of her evidence. The Elizabethan theater would use blackface and drag to subsume any powerful moments in laughs. Iago is the real star, getting the most stage time, confiding with the audience, setting everything in motion essentially as a playwright, having the most to gain, showing off plenty of wit and talent, and generally winning our sympathy when played properly. Everyone he punishes is an empty, foolish villain: OtHELLo the overpromoted Moor and DesDEMONa his wife commit various offenses of the day in addition to miscegenation; Roderigo is a half-witted, greedy would-be murderer; Emilia serves Desdemona and disobeys her husband. Cassio suffers for being a drunken whoremonger, but he gets rewarded in the end in recompense for being at the Moor's mercy. For all we know, he pardons Iago, who at least got to see his victory even while under arrest. (Iago was comically out of character to show up at the scene of the crime where he sent his wife.) Bland's approach is simple compared to others, but that could just mean that others are working too hard to find conciliatory depth in the characters.
Further reflection undid the evidence bit by bit. Blackface and drag mean nothing when there was no alternative to Elizabethans. Othello's flowery language prevents him from being a full-fledged effigy. Iago was cocky to show up. Cassio's silence does not seem like a pondering of whether to free him, and Iago's refusal to speak does not sound like a declaration of triumph. Perhaps most telling of all, the fleeting, random clown late in the play can only signal comic relief.
And if Shakespeare did want a farce, he should be grateful for modern misinterpretation. The play has certainly profited that way, as my paper's main topic showed: few villains in any medium can teach us as much about evil as Iago.
Essays on other Shakespeare plays have illustrated the potential for dramatic (double entendre) reinterpretations. This one merely stands out to me with its grandiosity.
After writing our research papers, we each discuss and evaluate in class one of the critical essays. I take a lot of interest in villains nowadays, so I focused on Iago. I knew beforehand that every villain in literature has a defender to some degree among critics. Sure enough, Shelia Rose Bland's "How I Would Direct Othello" makes the claim that the Bard meant the play as a comedy, with Iago as the hero.
I did not dismiss the claim outright. The full title does not include "The Tragedy of." Its success as a tragedy does not prove it so: The Manchurian Candidate succeeds greatly as a thriller but was planned as a comedy. It's been said that tragedy is "failed comedy," and indeed, Shakespeare's later plays demonstrate a difficulty in categorization. The hero need not be virtuous. The most important distinction is not the amount of humor, but the presence of a "happy ending."
Bland actually swayed me at first with the sheer volume of her evidence. The Elizabethan theater would use blackface and drag to subsume any powerful moments in laughs. Iago is the real star, getting the most stage time, confiding with the audience, setting everything in motion essentially as a playwright, having the most to gain, showing off plenty of wit and talent, and generally winning our sympathy when played properly. Everyone he punishes is an empty, foolish villain: OtHELLo the overpromoted Moor and DesDEMONa his wife commit various offenses of the day in addition to miscegenation; Roderigo is a half-witted, greedy would-be murderer; Emilia serves Desdemona and disobeys her husband. Cassio suffers for being a drunken whoremonger, but he gets rewarded in the end in recompense for being at the Moor's mercy. For all we know, he pardons Iago, who at least got to see his victory even while under arrest. (Iago was comically out of character to show up at the scene of the crime where he sent his wife.) Bland's approach is simple compared to others, but that could just mean that others are working too hard to find conciliatory depth in the characters.
Further reflection undid the evidence bit by bit. Blackface and drag mean nothing when there was no alternative to Elizabethans. Othello's flowery language prevents him from being a full-fledged effigy. Iago was cocky to show up. Cassio's silence does not seem like a pondering of whether to free him, and Iago's refusal to speak does not sound like a declaration of triumph. Perhaps most telling of all, the fleeting, random clown late in the play can only signal comic relief.
And if Shakespeare did want a farce, he should be grateful for modern misinterpretation. The play has certainly profited that way, as my paper's main topic showed: few villains in any medium can teach us as much about evil as Iago.
Essays on other Shakespeare plays have illustrated the potential for dramatic (double entendre) reinterpretations. This one merely stands out to me with its grandiosity.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject