Final Othello Analysis

Reading Shakespeare and performing Shakespeare require two completely different levels of thinking. It has been debated that this 17th century playwright produced his works expressly for the purpose of being seen on the stage, rather than merely read off the page. In viewing his words brought to life on screen and stage versus reading them, this is, in my opinion, a valid argument. Shakespeare wrote for the players. I believe he held the actors responsible for bringing his characters’ words and emotions to life. Many an actor, professional and otherwise, has desired and pursued the opportunity to portray various characters from his works, in the hopes of bringing their own interpretations of the complexities of these personalities to the table. Of these performers, I am one.
This course, a study of Shakespeare’s Tragedies in film, performance, and text, provided me the opportunity to fulfill such a dream. I was honored to place my name alongside Laurence Fishburne’s in our portrayal of Othello. Othello is a revealing look at the naiveté of man, and the damaging effects of trusting too much in others. This is expressed in the performance of the words Shakespeare wrote, by Laurence Fishburne, in director Oliver Parker’s traditional film rendition, and in my own portrayal as Homicide Division Captain O. Thello. In analysis, Fishburne and I strive to reveal this naiveté using both the poignancy of the words and the physical.
Fishburne’s portrayal, in Parker’s 1995 film, was a testament to his extensive acting skill and talent. As Iago’s (deftly portrayed by Kenneth Branaugh) deceptive words gain a deeper and more secure foothold in his mind, beginning at chapter nine of the film, Fishburne’s eyes and facial expressions reveal his growing doubts in the integrity of his bride, Desdemona (Irène Jacob). Fishburne also used his voice and body language to reflect the intensity of his emotions – his joy at seeing Desdemona following an overseas battle, his pain and anger when Iago first tells him that Desdemona is not loyal, on the beach, his sorrow and anguish when he suffocates her.
Fishburne’s interpretation enraptured me; particularly, the overwhelming amount of emotion in his eyes. His eyes told the story. The love and adoration he felt for Desdemona was evident, as was his respect for Iago. But as the poison of mistruth worked its way into his heart and mind, Fishburne’s eyes began to expose his hurt. As I watched him, I was mesmerized by the intensity there. I believe that Fishburne took the words Shakespeare wrote and reached into his own soul to find a personal pain that would reflect Othello’s; the pain of trusting and being deceived when we love too deeply and trust too completely.
Fishburne’s artistry also extended to his use of body language. This was evident in the elevated level of pain he displayed when he saw Bianca waving around the handkerchief he’d given his wife. His shoulders slumped in acceptance and despair with the knowledge that everything he’d believed had been a lie, or so he thought. Fishburne also used his large size to impose the greatness of the man as a soldier and a leader. At the same time, he had a great ability to express his softness and passion, in the way he caressed Desdemona in their marital bed scene. This diverse display of physicality showed Fishburne’s translation of Othello as more than just a military giant. Othello is human. He is power and strength, and passion and pain.
In addition, Fishburne used his voice (which is distinctive in and of itself), to deliver Shakespeare’s words with conviction. His voice booms when angered by the in-fighting of his military leaders. Then, his tone is soft and melodic when speaking words of love to the woman who claims his heart. This duality in using inflection to convey emotion is another testament to Fishburne’s artistry and proficiency. While Parker’s adaptation set the play in the traditional time period, using the traditional language of the work, which is hard for many to understand, Fishburne is masterful in his delivery of the lines, even incorporating a Middle Eastern accent. In this regard, Fishburne, once again, displays his talent for bringing the character to life.
While Fishburne and I share many obvious commonalities, it was my desire to bring the same level of intensity to the role. Therefore, I determined it was necessary to use my eyes, my voice, my body language, and my expression to reveal the intricacies of Capt. O. Thello, just as he did. In studying Fishburne, I discovered that I needed to become Capt. O. Thello. I needed to think, speak, and feel as my character did – a New York cop under pressure. I put aside inhibitions and reservations to ‘become’ my character.
From watching Fishburne, I gathered that I needed to remember my voice for each scene. When angry that I was being falsely accused, I needed to increase and project my tone and depth. When I wanted to express my gentle side in the bar scene, I needed to soften my voice so that Detective Desi Santiago/Desdemona could feel my gentleness and compassion. My voice had to express my emotional connection to the character. I therefore attempted to use this to show how I was feeling and thinking, just as Fishburne did.
I also learned how to use the words I was speaking. Our performance was a modernized interpretation of the play; therefore the language was rather coarse and graphic at times. I was a New York City police captain. I was tough because I had to be, as a Black woman in a White, and blue, and male, world. I had to deliver my lines in this mentality. I had to internalize my character - to think tough. I wanted to speak my lines with the same conviction as Fishburne so as not to appear to be ‘another actor doing the lines’ but to show that I had become Capt. O. Thello. By becoming the character, I was able to make the character believable, and thus have the audience share in my plight. I believe that this is what Fishburne did. More importantly, I believe that this is what Shakespeare wanted in regard to any who perform his works.
My use of body language and facial expressions also needed to play a huge role in the level of intensity of my portrayal of Othello. Like Fishburne, I needed to show the humanity of the character. I walk tall through the station, to show my authority, but when I am confused by the events surrounding Det. Santiago’s dismissal, I needed to reflect this in my slumping shoulders or slouched sitting position. I also attempted to use my eyes in the same manner. Fishburne was masterful in using his eyes to convey his/Othello’s emotion. I needed to grasp that same intensity so that the audience could see and understand the level of emotional angst my character was feeling.
But in numerous regards, Fishburne and I differ. Besides the obvious (my barber absolutely refused to shave my head completely bald), Fishburne and I differed in our approaches to the interpretation of the character in that he’s a professional and I’m not. While I did want to be a professional actor at one point in my life, I did not have the training and preparation he received. I was attempting to be a professional actor in my portrayal of the character. I was attempting to make the character believable, plausible. I wanted the audience to believe that Capt. O. Thello was a cop who believed in her co-worker and was deceived, and eventually destroyed.
While our performances were not expected to be of the award-winning, professional caliber for the class, I believe that my interpretation of the character was quite similar to Fishburne’s, though probably still not award-winning. I wanted to bring the same depth of intensity and emotion to the portrayal as he did. I wanted Capt. O. Thello to be a rich, vibrant representation of the character flaws of our individual humanity. I wanted to show my character much like his – believing in a system and the people within the system who are different , misled because of others’ hatred and envy, destroyed because of passion.
Fishburne and I were similar in our interpretations in that we both wanted to show Othello’s emotional depth. Othello, unlike most of Shakespeare’s characters, was not a very complex personality. He was quite transparent. We knew that he was being deceived. We also knew how he’d react, even though we wanted him to react differently. I believe that Fishburne and I reflected that while incorporating the emotional vibrancy that I believe Shakespeare wanted us to focus on in regard to his character.
As actors, Fishburne and I both appeared to understand the character of Othello as a flawed human being who appeared to have it all together, but really didn’t. We similarly showed how Othello allowed his/her own trusting nature to be his/her downfall. Fishburne and I differed in that his Othello trusted Iago, and mine trusted the evidence Iago manipulated more so than listening to Iago himself. Both our characters lashed out against people we claimed to value in our lives. We both showed Othello as a character who believed too much in something other than himself.
In the final analysis, it was never my intention to rise to the caliber of Laurence Fishburne as an actor. It was my intent to bring to the stage the vibrancy of the portrayal. It was my intent to entertain the audience with a realism and depth that reflected Shakespeare’s writing. I wanted to show the character. I sought to give O. Thello life beyond the page, just as I believed Fishburne and Parker did, and just as I believed Shakespeare intended.
Overall, I have come to appreciate that the great divide between today’s audience and Shakespeare lies only in the minds of those who see the words he wrote on the page, rather than seeing the characters and their struggles as not unlike those of our own; timeless. Whether it is portrayed by Olivier or Fishburne or some no-rate college student like myself, Othello or Hamlet or Iago or Lady Macbeth are Shakespeare’s representations of ourselves and our trials and tribulations as human beings; imperfections in an imperfect world. Reading about them is one thing, but experiencing them is what we all should do in order to make the connection that we are them, and they are us.

Acting Othello

Whew! It's over! The hard work, frustration, and anxiety of weeks of preparation, line memorization, and blocking rehearsals has culminated in the performances to remember. I'd say we did Shakespeare justice last night.
I had the honor of playing O. Thello, a N.Y. Police Department Homicide Division Captain. Besides the obvious, I believe I brought as much passion to the role as any real actor who's ever portrayed this controversial character. Our director's vision was to modernize Othello so we put a Law and Order spin on it. Our premise was pretty much in line w/the original work:
Captain O. Thello has two detectives, Iago (originally from Narcotics), and Cassio, who both want in in her department. O. Thello consults her top, Senior D.T. (detective) Desi Santiago. Santiago logically pushes for Cassio and O. Thello follows her advice. This pisses Iago off royally and all his true evilness and ugliness comes pouring out. He recruits A.D.A. Callia to help him fabricate and manipulate the system, in order to bring down Santiago, who dumped him years before, and O. Thello. Iago's idea is a perfect vehicle for Callia. She is willing because she secretly has the hots for Iago. Most importantly, he promises to get her the advancement and prestige she has been yearning for.
First, the dastardly duo bring down Santiago on a bogus rap. O. Thello tries to convince Santiago to fight for her name, but to no avail. Then, Iago works on O. Thello, pouring poison into her ear regarding Santiago, convincing O. Thello that she had been foolishly trusting someone who really was dirty and corrupt, Santiago. Finally, with Santiago out of the way, Callia and Iago go in for the kill, confronting Capt. O. Thello with the same accusations and false evidence. O. Thello, of course, is innocent but the evidence is there. As O. Thello is being confronted, Santiago walks in. Iago intended for both to be arrested at the same time so he lured Santiago down to the office under the guise of meeting to discuss her 'crime'. Thanks to the lies and doubts swirling around in O. Thello's mind, all she believes is that Santiago set her up to fall too. So, O. Thello, in a fit of rage and thinking she's got nothing to lose, shoots and kills Santiago. This is better than what Iago had planned for. He seizes the opportunity to be the hero (and completely cover up his lies) and immediately shoots and kills O. Thello. Unfortunately for him, Iago had no idea that Cassio had been doin' some digging of her own when Santiago went down. Cassio learns that Iago and Callia are dirty. But before she has a chance to warn O. Thello, the captain dies. When Iago shoots and kills the captain, Cassio shoots and kills him. Cassio becomes the hero, placing Callia under arrest.
A classmate got a peek at our script and her advice to me was to "bring it". I highly doubt I could have touched Fishburne's version (especially when I'm saying things like "Stripper Ripper"!), but I did want to bring just as much passion to the role. The tale of Othello (both W.S.'s and ours) is a passionate tale of trust and what we believe. Nothing should stir the flames of the soul more in any human being than when one's trust or beliefs are abused or manipulated. This is why I wanted to play the role (besides the obvious). I believed I could reflect that passion, that painful dissolution of trust Othello suffered, and fell, under. My kids said I did okay, but I just need to work on my dying! Critics! I think I did okay, barring the fact that I forgot a whole lot of my lines! All in all and nerves aside, it was a pleasure, W.S. to add my name to the annals of the esteemed (and not so esteemed) actors who have interpreted that role. If I had to do it all over again, would I? Yeah, I'd just make sure to do a better job with the death scene!

Women and the Evil Men Fear

In the beginning there was a guy named Adam and his girlfriend Eve. These two walked around naked all day, hanging out in an exclusive garden where their nudity wasn't an issue. There was just one stipulation to this life of freedom and carefree leisure - nobody touch the fruit off the big tree in the center.
Well, as we know the story, Evie listened to the snake, gave Adam the apple (who knew just as well not to eat it but did anyway!), and the rest is, as they say, biblical history (or folklore for all those who don't buy into the Bible tales, not that there's anything wrong with that!).
Well, I like to stir the pot whenever the spirit hits me. So, I was thinking, let's examine what the snake said to ol' Evie that convinced her to go against a direct order in the first place. I figure, an insight into what buttons that snake actually pushed in Eve's brain could be the key to what it is about women that men fear.
Yeah, I said it! Men fear women. Why else would we have been subjected to being burned at the stake or drowned in Salem, MA? Why else would the Catholic church have taken away our right to preach the gospels we're supposed to respect, love, and model just like them? Why else would a Muslim woman have to cover herself with the veil lest she "be a temptation" and distract man from his ultimate objective - constant, dedicated worship of God? Why else would we still be, since the dawn of humanity, the universal victims of the most heinous and degrading treatment any human being should ever endure - rape and abuse?
Not male bashing. No femi-nazi hate here. Just rational, intellectual discussion of a consideration of a concept to explain why women are feared and thus sexualized and objectified - STILL - in this day and age.
So, in the NIV Bible, the translation I found (Gen. 3:1-6) of this little story goes like this:
Now, the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (v3)
Well, the serpent goes on to tell her that she won't die. God just said that, he says. The real truth is that her knowledge would increase regarding life and good and evil, and God didn't want her/them knowin' all that God knew. So the woman ate the apple, and, well, you know the rest.
So, what did the serpent do? Some say it deceived Eve but she knew what was going on so how could there have been deception? The serpent told her the truth - that she would have knowledge the equivalent of God's. That equaled POWER in her mind; power she felt she could handle; power she wanted. Therefore, she went for it.
This is why women are evil and thus feared - because of the power within us and the power we want as human beings. Men know how corrupt and deadly they can be with power. Hell, we've been experiencing it since the dawn of time! Imagine that corruption and deadly force in the hands of a woman then! Scary, i'nt it?! That is why Lady Macbeth and the Weird Sisters (the witches) were such impacting forces in the play. That is why women have not totally gained the power.
Yeah, we've made advances, burned bras, and gained a whole lotta ground. But we still got a long way to go. Until we are no longer sexualized, until we no longer have to manipulate him or play on his weaknesses to get what we need or what, until we no longer have to fear for our advancement, security, and position in whatever world we occupy, until we don't have to hide our beauty and strength behind veils of any kind, we will not truly nor completely have the power. And we shall continue to be feared rather than respected. Personally, I prefer the respect. But I'll take the fear until men wise up.

The Perils of Authority - King Lear's Take

The perils of being a parent are that your best intentions are often mislaid, especially when you have more than one child vying for your attentions and affections and your wisdom may not always be wise. Allow me to explain.
As the oldest of seven, I have had a bird's eye view of my mother's relationship with each of us. It is apparent that, like most parents, she has favorites. These would be the youngest daughter and her sons. For these three, mother has been most helpful, supportive, and attentive. I once questioned her about it. Her reply was that she didn't see the remaining four of us as needing her assistance quite as much. Basically, we other four were more independent and therefore mother let us fly (and fall) alone. Mother wasn't trying to neglect any of us. Her decision to be more attentive to the neediness of the younger three stemmed from who cried loudest. They were the squeakiest wheels, and thus they get greased, much like Lear's Goneril and Regan.
Without attempting to make a supposition as to what Lear was feeling/thinking, it has been suggested that his was a "narcissistic" and "prideful" character in regard to his relationship with his daughters. One loved him truly and honestly. The others (as children will do) 'loved' him for what they could gain. And yet he dismissed the true love, blinded by the empty love.
In going mad was this the end result of aging, of the broken heart of a loving father who recognized his faux pas and yet was overly self-judgemental in deeming himself too late for redemption?
Parents, rulers, those in authority are in a tight position. We never can please everyone. We never are capable of 100% of the time making the best decisions. And often when we decide incorrectly, we determine it a sign of weakness to acknowledge our shortcomings. As one in this position, we cannot be weak. But is it not more a sign of weakness to not acknowledge our flaws and seek forgiveness/restitution when necessary?

A Question of Trust as the Other

To all my adoring fans out there, sorry this is late. Had some weird Yahoo/Google issues going on as far as gettin' here. Anyhoo, we're still talkin' Othello (although I know not in what regard) so that is once again my subject.
I'm doing a little presentation for a class assignment where we enact various scenes from selected Will S. works. Of course, I'm in the Othello group. I am Othello (said in a deep, dramatic voice).
Our learned director (and classmate) felt inclined to update this classic w/a contemporary twist which is cool. However, I am hard pressed to determine how I should portray such a complex character as Othello.
Our group has chosen to give the work a Law and Order energy. I'm Homicide Division Capt. O. Thello (cute, eh?). I am head honcho and thus control the destiny of one Junior Detective Iago, much the same as in the original work. Now, here's where it gets sticky.
As in the play, I am the Other. Here, I am a brown-skinned, female in a male controlled world. I am the leader of men and women, who is respected, served, and yet manipulated by another's hatred and jealousy. I give my trust freely only to have it corrupted by deception. In the end, I fall to these lies and my naive trusting of the world around me.
Was Othello naive? I believe so. Wanting so much to fit into a world which only used him left him blind to the potential for attack. He trusted too freely. But what could he have done? Not only words but proofs presented enriched the poisons being dripped into his ear. Maybe there was nothing he could have done to avoid his downfall. Besides, Iago was just too slick in his maneuverings.
That said, I guess there is only one thing left for me to do. I must play the role of naive, trusting fool as it is presented. I am the leader - proud of my position and determined to give the best service I can to my superiors. All the while, there is a dagger aimed at my back of which I am unaware. My naivety, in fact, pushes the dagger through my flesh deep into the muscle within. I will fall and take others with me and as I go, what lesson have I learned in my final hour? That my trust of a world, in which I could have never really been a complete part of, was my doom.

What is the Fear of the 'Other' in Power? - Othello and Obama

The old saying, "There is nothing to fear, but Fear itself" should be amended to state, "There is nothing to fear, but Fear of a black man in charge". Many people in these tumultuous times would concur I'm sure. The question I put forth begs to understand: what is this fear when considering Senator Obama (the 'Other') in a position of great power? It is only fitting that I should attempt an answer within the context of Othello.

As the Other, Othello was feared because of his difference; namely his skin tone. While he professed in his address to the Senators that his speech was "rough", he was articulate. His military expertise was highly valued and gloriously utilized by the country. And yet, Othello's relationship with Desdemona was a source of intense consternation to her father, and his authority and judgment were despised and envied by Iago.

In regard to Obama, or any other black in America, it is highly evident that this man is just as capable of running this country as any white man. Throughout American history, many blacks (male and female alike) have more than dispelled the various myths which early on abounded regarding the supposed inferiority of blacks. Countless blacks have excelled in the fields of medicine, military, education, business/finance, athletics, etc. And yet, the fear remains.
Obama's intellect is unquestionable. His ambition falls in line with that of any white male of his stature. The only obvious, yet highly illogical, reason to fear Obama's possible leadership of these supposed United States would be his skin color.

His skin represents a drastic change; a magnanimous shift in the assumption of just who is to have ultimate control in America. This nation was not founded by black and white men together, unified in the fight against oppressive English domination and manipulation. This nation was not constructed by the collective idealism of black and white men together, unified in the pursuit of freedom of idea, religious belief, and prosperity. White men started it and by God, they're supposed to be in charge of it regardless of the numerous sacrifices, contributions, and advancements of every marginalized Other who has tread the soil of this land. What a crock!

The bottom line - Obama's skin, like Othello's, represents the Fear; the fear that many in white society would be hard pressed to ignore. He would be the "head N***** in charge". He would be calling the shots and passing the laws. So are they afraid that there will be a Chicken and Waffle House and a liquor store on every suburban street corner? Are they afraid that he'll pass a national law requiring all black men to have their way with pure, virginal white girls? Are they afraid that the National Anthem will be rewritten into a rap? Of course, if any would think these far-fetched suppositions, then they are resoundingly ignorant; PERIOD.

Obama has, in numerous declarations and presentations, stated his intentions as president of this country and while he may not achieve them all, they are far from involving liquor stores or rap music, and echo the dreams and aspirations of any white male Democrat in pursuit of the highest office of this land. That said, I ask again , what is this Fear of a black President of the United States of America? Or of a woman? Or of a Jew? Or of any other aptly qualified Other who has assisted in the growth, development, and maintenance of this nation? Is white-protestant-male dominance so perfect and great that none Other can match or succeed it? Perhaps if I were steeped in an illogical irrationality of the persistence of ignorance, priviledge, and tradition I'd understand. Thank goodness I'm not.

Iago: Othello's Example of the Secret Racist In All of Us

The question was recently raised regarding what deeper motivation could W.S. have intended when presenting Iago as so racist and hateful of Othello. The facts as presented in the play only show Iago serving under Othello for so very long, passed over for a lucrative appointment in favor of another, and then... well, you know how it goes.

Let's say you have a boss. You've worked diligently and loyally for your boss. You have requested and expect a raise. You're confident you'll get the raise not to mention the boss leads you to believe that you'll get it. But you don't; your boss gives that raise to the new guy. You're pissed. How do you react if you and your boss are White males? You curse him under your brother, etc. Now, consider, in the REAL world how you'd react if your boss is a White female and you're male? Or, as in this case, your boss is black and you're not.

Most people will lie and say that they would not be racist, that this is not an issue of race but of fairness. But we must be honest with ourselves folks in order to know ourselves - we may not intend to be racist but when the buttons are amply pushed, I believe that the average human being is going to negatively attack the differences of their attacker as an emotional self-defense mechanism.

If Iago had not initially harbored some illogical misconceptions regarding Moors/Othello, then where would they have come from? Iago had served under Othello for years and, presumably, never encountered a reason to hate his superior until the beginnings of the play. Bear in mind that W.S. starts us off at this point as a catalyst for the action. If Iago had just been angry, he may have made a few slurs, seethed for awhile, and then moved on. Once Iago's inner racist demons had been released, this fueled the fires of his irrationality, hatred, and resentment; that he'd taken so much off a Moor for so long, that he should have to serve under a beast like Othello, etc. How can we know what W.S. has left unaddressed for us in regard to the beginnings of their relationship or Iago's attitude toward Othello when Othello wasn't around?

What is done/kept in the dark, is eventually brought into the light. We all have a secret door within our selves labeled "discriminations". While our tongues may not speak it, our minds, and even our actions (or lack thereof) will. This is not an indictment against humanity. This is an observation of our humanity. The indictment lies in our individual refusal to acknowledge our truths - yes, that door exists, yes, it's been opened a crack in this instance or that... The indictment lies in the fact that so many of us keep our backs pressed against that door attempting to prevent the big reveal of what lies within for fear of facing ourselves or being labeled. But rather than label or fear, why not examine the discriminations that lurk in there, waiting to come out and be free? Not just that, but by accessing what the discriminations are, we can also LEARN why we've tucked them away. Once the knowledge is there, there's no need to keep them. We can then choose to clean out the closet and truthfully live with one another and ourselves.... that is until the next Other comes along for us to fear!

The Simpsons in Tights: A Reading of Hamlet; A Truly Dysfunctional Family

If you were asked to consider the story of Hamlet and articulate it in a single phrase, what would probably come to mind is 'extremely dysfunctional'. If you're one of those elitist, intellectual types and you prefer to describe Hamlet as a study of the Oedipal themes or some other rot, let me break it down as I got it and then you tell me if the story is not about sheer dysfunction.



Let's recap. Hamlet's uncle poisons his daddy, the king, and kills him. Uncle Psycho marries lonely Queen Gertie, Ham's mama, before daddy's body even hits the ground. Hamlet, despondent and grieving, chats with poor poppa's ghost and learns the truth. Hamlet takes up dear old dad's command to "remember me" (in English, "get payback boy! Only, leave your dear ol' ma out of this") and feigns schizo to trap King Uncle/Daddy. In the process, Hamlet can't help but harbor twisted psycho-sexual aggression and anger against Queen Mama for bed hoppin'. Hamlet produces a play to rub King Uncle/Daddy the wrong way (and does), accidentally kills busy-body Polonius, and screws over (possibly literally) Ophelia, his girlfriend, because she's female and thus weak like Queen Mum. She goes nuts (for real) because she got the shaft (then again, maybe she didn't and that made her mad) and possibly because her daddy got whacked. So far, sounds pretty dysfunctional to me. But we're not done yet.



King Uncle/Daddy sends Hamlet and a secret letter to England hoping he's killed while there, but schizo boy finds it, forges another letter, and has his buddies Rosencrantz and Guildenstern knocked off instead. Ham returns home just in time for the funeral of his one-time girl Ophelia (who drowned herself) and clashes with her extremely pissed off big brother, Laertes. Laertes is so hot about his dead sister and pop that he plots with Ol' King Killer to "accidentally" kill Ham with poison. King Killer has to make it look like an accident so that he doesn't lose favor with Queen Mama Gertie. So, King Uncle/Daddy/Killer sets up a sword contest between Hammy and Laertes, who poisons the tip of his sword, and poisons the wine, which Ham's mama accidentally drinks. In the end, flights of angels send Hamlet, his mama, the Killer King, and Laertes to their rest via poison and deception. Sounds pretty twisted to me.



But the most disturbing aspect of the entire tale is how our pal Willy S. had utilizes sex as the underlying driving force behind most of the action of the tale. The uncle kills his brother, not so much for the thrill of ruling, but because of how bad he coveted his brother's wife (a big Biblical no-no!). Hamlet despised his mother and Ophelia because he connected women with a weakness for sexual gratification. Mother jumped in the sack all too quickly with the uncle so therefore, as the prime woman in his life, women, in general, are thus represented by her model. Ophelia lost her mind because she wasn't getting any from Hamlet. Then again, others may contest that theory and argue that he and Ophelia had been intimate. His sudden and unexpected turn toward lunacy, and away from her, was the actual catalyst that sent her mind into a tailspin. In either regard, sex was the overall reason Ophelia lost it.

In this context, Shakespeare sounds very Freudian - everyone is sex-crazed and thus driven to desperate acts of violence and illogical behavior. So, rather than a stuffy and pretentious assessment of the thematic meaning behind the Oedipal relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet, or some other antiquated high school English subject, how about we look at what old Willy S. was really saying in Hamlet; too much or too little sex can drive you mad!

Shakespeare in a Postmodernistic Light

To be bored or not to be bored... that is the question most people pose when faced with the task of reading a Shakespeare play. The language is usually the culprit in every instance whether one is reading a Tragedy or a Comedy. For in itself, Will was a masterful storyteller whose stories pretty much can be applicable in any time period. But when bringing Hamlet or Taming of the Shrew to the stage or big screen, reflecting the work in a postmodern vein renders the story more accessible to broader audience. Some proponents of the Classically structured art as true art would reduce Taymor's Titus or Lurhmann's Romeo to the level of pop-art and thus not worthy of serious consideration. The point of modernizing such works, I believe, is not to take away from the Classical seriousness of the work. Rather, to bring the themes and story into a more digestible form so that everyone may be able to appreciate the message in the work. I have read Romeo and I've seen a Classical production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. While I was able to appreciate the beauty of these pieces, I got more enjoyment from a more contemporary or modernized version, even when the original dialogue is used. The coupling of a modern setting with the traditional language helps the audience to see the work as not just an updated version of a Shakespeare piece, but it brings the issues within the play into a comprehendable view. Yes, Othello may say, ""... An honorable murderer, if you will; for nought I did in hate, but all in honor.", but we see Laurence Fishburn has killed his wife thinking she's been unfaithful and we understand exactly how he feels.

The OverKill of Titus Andronicus

While it could be said that Taymor's adaptation of W.S.'s Titus went waaaayyyyy over the top, I would argue that she, as well as old W.S., were utilizing their creativity to simply tell a powerful story. What meaning of the story is up to the individual. It was clear for me. Of course we all know that real life doesn't work that way... then again, maybe it does? Maybe in someones sad and twisted world, if they are not shown the mercy - the kindness - that they ask for then maybe it does become their life mission to bring about the systematic and total annihilation of their enemy. Maybe. And then what could we say about that person - that they have lost their humanity, that they have become a "ravenous tiger" (Shakespeare, 106, Act V.3) and thus they are only to be foul carnage for the "beasts and birds to prey" (Shakespeare, 106, Act V.3)? But then, who was the more inhumane, the one who got screwed over and eventually went on a vengeful rampage, or the one of whom kindness was requested and yet withheld it? It could be said that the focus of the story is not so much on spending one's life being a total b**** when you're screwed. I looked at the texts as a glimpse into the potential madness the human being can slip into when immersed in a quagmire of hatred. Yes, the story was about Titus in title but there'd be no story without Tamora and Aaron. Titus was a reactionary and a pawn in their game of deception and retaliation. She used her 'wiles' to manipulate and twist Titus and Saturninus, and got not one drop of blood directly on her calculating little hands. She was clever, indeed. But was she right? Here lies the question of our humanity. To say that she wasn't, considering the tragic and cold-blooded act that drove her to her scheme, would be to say that a mother who violently and needlessly loses a child should just mourn and move on. Sorry, but it ain't that easy. To say that she was justified would reveal the respondent as having the potential to be just as animalistic as Tamora was. Ah, now here's the rub. There are goo-gobs of moms right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. who've lost children to the savage and inhumane acts of gang violence. Many of these moms never got to ask the shooters for mercy before their babies were slaughtered. And yet many of these moms do seek revenge. Like Tamora, they fight back. They take their battle to the streets and to the political officials to get handguns off the streets, to get more frequent and proactive police presence, and to systematically and totally annihilate the gang activity in their neighborhoods. And they never get a drop of blood on their hands. Tamora fought back. Taymor and ol' Willy may have gone over the top with the violence. But in looking beyond labeling the texts as campy, one could find a deeper meaning within the actions of the players.

Shakespeare in love and New Historicism

If we were to continue to subscribe to the old-school mandates of the New Criticism, every fallacy regarding the genius, sophistication, and basic "deadness" of Will Shakespeare would continue to support our inevitable lackluster attitude toward his work. While it is a glossy Hollywood production, the film offers viewers the opportunity to regard Will S. and his subsequent works, through a more realistic lens. He was a man with flaws, desires, needs, joys, and sorrows. The New Historicism prompts us to assess the work and the man within the context of humanity - literary genius or plaigarist?; upstanding model of manhood or adulterer and womanizer?; a writer for the ages or a storyteller of his time? Looking beyond the film fluff to the theory itself, Will S. was a man, I believe, who wrote based upon the life and times around him, addressing the issues of humanity that are indeed timeless - love, life, death, communication, the frailities of the human psyche, the shortcomings of a society, etc. Thus his work appears to be "timeless".