Racism + Sexism = Iago

Maybe it's a harsh claim to make, but I highly dislike Iago.  First off, he starts things because he is jealous of Othello.  Acting on behalf of  jealousy only makes things worse.  In the first act, we find out that Iago is racist, calling Othello "the thick lips" and a "barbary horse".  In these days, his character would be looked down upon, but in the old days, I feel as though racism was the normal due to the existence of slavery.  Does anybody think that the meaning of this play could be different in the old days?  Maybe Iago did not come off as such a bad person back then.  Also, we find out that Iago is a bit sexist in the second act, on the island of Cypress.  He claims that "women rise to play, and go to bed to work".  This is completely disrespectful, and it makes me hate Iago even more.  In today's world, many people would brush him off as a simple ahole, as I do.  But could his image have been different in the time period of this play?  

A More Identifiable Othello

I was watching the modern version of Othello yesterday (aka “O” with Mekhi Phifer, Julia Stiles and Josh Hartnett) and I found it very surprising how well they incorporated the play into this movie. Going into it, I thought the movie would be a modern version VERY loosely based on the play. I don’t know if any of you have seen the movie before, but I definitely recommend it. The reason I liked it so much is because I was able to find constant parallels with the movie and the play and it helped make the characters seem more real. The parallels included an interpretation of Shakespeare’s speech which was quite similar to language that we would use every day. Because this play has a very intricate plot line (which sometimes I found was hard to follow) it was nice to be able to see it unravel in something more easily identifiable. The other aspect which I appreciated was being able to see how the characters act in a time of our own (something more like reality). I often find it very hard to relate to the Shakespeare characters sometimes simply because I have a pre-set notion that it happened such a long time ago, which can create quite a barrier. I thought this version was very refreshing, and even though I saw it when it first came out, watching it right after reading the play again pretty fun. A lot more parallels jumped out at me than I would have thought.

Imagery in the Scottish Play

I think Shakespeare's use of symbols and imagery in macbeth is really cool. Blood is everywhere, and for the most part it seems to be a physical manifestation of guilt. For example, Lady Macbeth has her sleep walking episodes where she tries to wash the blood off. Macbeth sees a bloody Banquo, as well as a bloody child apparition, a bloody knife, and just constantly talks about delving deeper in to blood which is murder and therefore guilt as well. Lady Macbeth's asks for her blood to be thickened, perhaps so she cannot feel the guilt of her actions, but we know that doesn't happen. There is also a lot of clothing related images regarding king ship. The term borrowed robes are referred to often. When Macbeth is told he is Thane of Cawdor, he says why do you dress me in the borrowed robes. When he becomes king, there is mention of the clothes not fitting right. And towards the end of the play, if I remember correctly Macduff calls his clothing stolen. The clothing is obviously representative of the position of kingship and other nobility. I liked how it was consistently referenced throughout the play.

Fate/Fortune in Macbeth

Quote I’m discussing:

And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
Show'd like a rebel's whore: but all's too weak:
For brave Macbeth--well he deserves that name--
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave;
Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements.

I think that the sergeant summarizes the role of Macbeth’s decisions, and fortune’s influence very well in the second scene. An important thing to notice, however, is that his description remains ambiguous because it can be read in two opposing ways: either Macbeth disdains fortune with his sword and carves out his own passage, OR fortune is disdaining for brave Macbeth because it carves out Macbeth’s passage like a minion (and we all know Macbeth’s fate is not such a positive one). This ambiguity is very intriguing and the two meanings the passage conveys provide the main (in my opinion) question for any audience to answer. Was it Macbeth’s fate that led to each of these events, or was it Macbeth’s decisions that led him to his fate?

Something Rotten in Denmark

What is rotten in Denmark? This question was mentioned frequently, and the quote is well known, but rarely is the question answered. I would like to propose that death-- more specifically death out of its place-- provides the rotten stench. The scene with the gravedigger led me most directly to this conclusion. He discusses how bodies are often rotten before they arrive, and his job is to put death where it belongs (by burying it). The king, poisoned in his own garden, is the initial source of rot. This may explain why his ghost haunts rotten Denmark. Later, when Hamlet hides the dead body, he adds to the problem. This explanation makes sense to me especially in the presence of murder and the king's ghost. It also gives a reason for the inclusion of the gravedigger's scene.

Richard III

One of the most interesting things that it seems I, and others who have commented on this blog, have found about Richard III is that so many people believe everything he said, against all evidence to the contrary. In a play that is all about betrayal and killing, this seems to me to send a message contrary to what goes on in the play: that people, for better or worse, want to believe in the good inside a person. We see it first with Lady Anne, but afterwards with many characters, including Queen Elizabeth. It is very odd to me that he was always believed, and the only conclusion I can come to is that Shakespeare was trying to make a point on human nature. He wanted the audience to hope, along with the other characters, that smooth-tongued Richard was redeemable, making it a greater letdown when he betrayed them all again. Thoughts?

Richard III...

Since nobody has been posting lately, I decided to try and start something, at least, for Richard III.  I probably liked this play the least so far because it serves no purpose in my mind.  All it is, on the whole, is a play full of deceit and killing.  It is merely a story, and it doesn't even teach a direct lesson other than, don't be a deceitful serial killer.  It amazes me how Richard uses his voice and his words to deceive people and blame deaths on other people.  It seems to me that nobody should believe him, but some people do, even when it is obvious that he is killing everyone.  He also uses his words to get with Lady Anne, someone who practically hates him for the death of her late husband, Prince Edward.  All I know is that it seems a bit ridiculous that many people believe the words of Richard.  Could it be that they are scared of being killed themselves?  I don't know......