As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

William Shakespeare

1235»

Posts

  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Bogart wrote: »
    Shylock complains that Antonio is bad for his stereotypically Jewish business, he moans more about his lost money than about his daughter, etc. Why does he have to poison wells or sacrifice infants to be a Jewish villain?

    Because that's what a "Jewish" villain was, particularly at that time. They were nigh-Satanic figures on-stage, informed by the widespread beliefs at the time that those were the sorts of activities in which Jews engaged. Shylock complaining that Antonio is bad for his business isn't a Jewish complaint, per se, and the fact that he cares about the loss of his fortune at least as much as the loss of his daughter is not a Jewish trait per se, especially at that time.
    You can argue that Shylock doesn't really mean to take the pound of flesh from Antonio and that it's all a coincidence that he gets the chance, but I think that's reading the play with a 20th century mindset bent on avoiding things that are very plainly in the text. The most compelling reason for putting that condition in there is the thought that hey, maybe if he doesn't pay up I'll be able to gut him. It's a sneaky plan to kill Antonio, even if it has very little chance of succeeding and even if Shylock doesn't make it entirely seriously, it's still his suggestion and it's still a trap. He even tells Antonio that he'd never even think of collecting on the bond because hey that'd be crazy and he's not a bad guy, actively lulling him into signing. And after a quick look at the play I can't find any line from Tubal in which he reminds Shylock about the bond (though I'm looking at a script online, so I can't be certain it's accurate). Shylock has a confrontation with two of Antonio's friends about the bond before Tubal shows up, and tells them he will take Antonio's flesh 'to bait fish withal'. Tubal rocks up and tells Shylock that Antonio's ships are catching rocks like it's going out of style, and Shylock's overjoyed.

    You're right, I misremembered; Tubal didn't remind Shylock of the bond (although he pretty clearly goads Shylock into it). The two Sals ask Shylock if he'd heard that Antonio had lost a ship, and at that point Shylock starts in on the "let him look to his bond." But note, this is AFTER Jessica has abandoned Shylock for a Christian and taken his money. If none of that had happened, would Shylock still be looking to the bond? I seriously doubt it. As he tells Antonio earlier:

    Pray you, tell me this;
    If he should break his day, what should I gain
    By the exaction of the forfeiture?
    A pound of man's flesh taken from a man
    Is not so estimable, profitable neither,
    As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say,
    To buy his favour, I extend this friendship:
    If he will take it, so; if not, adieu;
    And, for my love, I pray you wrong me not.

    Now, either Shylock is lying, or he's telling the truth. I think he's telling the truth. He's in the money-making business, and there's no money to be made by killing Antonio (it would, in fact, be much worse for business; he would incur the wrath of the whole city thereby). It's better for his business in the long run if he buys Antonio's good-will with an interest-free loan, with some claptrap ridiculousness for the bond. There are no villainous asides to the audience a la Iago to let them know that Shylock is seriously hoping to kill Antonio here.

    Brian888 on
  • Mustachio JonesMustachio Jones jerseyRegistered User regular
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dfLkcTAR80

    I'm sure everyone's seen this by now, but it bears repeating.

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Taramoor wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Othello is definitely my favorite of his plays. Iago is just an incredible villain.

    My favorite thing about Iago is that you don't really know why the hell he does it.

    The text was posted, but still.

    Solid gold awesome.

    I think that's why Iago is so much more interesting than Aaron. Aaron is a straight sociopath, a cruel and vile human being whose misanthropic tendencies make him largely difficult to relate to, or understand. Iago, on the other hand, is manipulative, cunning, and cruel - but his motivations aren't revealed to us. That mystery is what makes him so intriguing, because we are forced to guess as to why he does what he does.

    I've read and seen Othello many times, and the best conclusion I can come up with is that Iago does what he does, simply because he can. It's almost as if he stumbles upon this ability to manipulate others, and in so doing, he starts to elevate his own ego - using his lies as a way to wield power over others and validate his intelligence. He finds it rewarding, and like any good power trip, keeps pushing it to see just how far he can take his deception. I think it's also why we seem him laughing in the final scene - not because he has won, even though he has assuredly lost - but, rather, he's become so disconnected from everything around him that he considers his actions and their consequences to be a joke. And the sick reveal is the punchline.

    Roz on
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Othello is definitely my favorite of his plays. Iago is just an incredible villain.

    My favorite thing about Iago is that you don't really know why the hell he does it.

    The text was posted, but still.

    Solid gold awesome.

    I think that's why Iago is so much more interesting than Aaron. Aaron is a straight sociopath, a cruel and vile human being whose misanthropic tendencies make him largely difficult to relate to, or understand. Iago, on the other hand, is manipulative, cunning, and cruel - but his motivations aren't revealed to us. That mystery is what makes him so intriguing, because we are forced to guess as to why he does what he does.

    I've read and seen Othello many times, and the best conclusion I can come up with is that Iago does what he does, simply because he can. It's almost as if he stumbles upon this ability to manipulate others, and in so doing, he starts to elevate his own ego - using his lies as a way to wield power over others and validate his intelligence. He finds it rewarding, and like any good power trip, keeps pushing it to see just how far he can take his deception. I think it's also why we seem him laughing in the final scene - not because he has won, even though he has assuredly lost - but, rather, he's become so disconnected from everything around him that he considers his actions and their consequences to be a joke. And the sick reveal is the punchline.

    See, I always viewed Iago as the sociopath. He gives different motivations for himself that don't bear out over the course of the play, but always seem to be what the other person expects or wants to hear. He feels no attachment to anything or emotional connection, he just does what he does.

    Aaron on the other hand, and it's probably because of the way Harry Lennix played him in Titus, seems to me like a guy who is just goddamned pissed at everyone. He's black, and so he's been treated like he's less than human his entire life, and a man can only take so much. His whole "fuck the world" shtick falls apart the moment he sees his kid, which says to me that he just wants to be left alone and if these fuckers aren't going to let him go off and live in peace he's going to do everything he can to make their lives hell and their deaths quick and painful.

  • Mustachio JonesMustachio Jones jerseyRegistered User regular
    Iago does what he does because he's evil for evil's sake. And that's why he makes for such a great villain. Sure, he's kind of a mustache-twirler, but it doesn't come across that way. He has the opportunity to be a dick, is a dick because of that, and is unremorseful when shit goes south.

    There's something deeply unsettling about a man who has no ulterior motive for the evil he commits.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Brian888 wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Shylock complains that Antonio is bad for his stereotypically Jewish business, he moans more about his lost money than about his daughter, etc. Why does he have to poison wells or sacrifice infants to be a Jewish villain?

    Because that's what a "Jewish" villain was, particularly at that time. They were nigh-Satanic figures on-stage, informed by the widespread beliefs at the time that those were the sorts of activities in which Jews engaged. Shylock complaining that Antonio is bad for his business isn't a Jewish complaint, per se, and the fact that he cares about the loss of his fortune at least as much as the loss of his daughter is not a Jewish trait per se, especially at that time.
    You can argue that Shylock doesn't really mean to take the pound of flesh from Antonio and that it's all a coincidence that he gets the chance, but I think that's reading the play with a 20th century mindset bent on avoiding things that are very plainly in the text. The most compelling reason for putting that condition in there is the thought that hey, maybe if he doesn't pay up I'll be able to gut him. It's a sneaky plan to kill Antonio, even if it has very little chance of succeeding and even if Shylock doesn't make it entirely seriously, it's still his suggestion and it's still a trap. He even tells Antonio that he'd never even think of collecting on the bond because hey that'd be crazy and he's not a bad guy, actively lulling him into signing. And after a quick look at the play I can't find any line from Tubal in which he reminds Shylock about the bond (though I'm looking at a script online, so I can't be certain it's accurate). Shylock has a confrontation with two of Antonio's friends about the bond before Tubal shows up, and tells them he will take Antonio's flesh 'to bait fish withal'. Tubal rocks up and tells Shylock that Antonio's ships are catching rocks like it's going out of style, and Shylock's overjoyed.

    You're right, I misremembered; Tubal didn't remind Shylock of the bond (although he pretty clearly goads Shylock into it). The two Sals ask Shylock if he'd heard that Antonio had lost a ship, and at that point Shylock starts in on the "let him look to his bond." But note, this is AFTER Jessica has abandoned Shylock for a Christian and taken his money. If none of that had happened, would Shylock still be looking to the bond? I seriously doubt it. As he tells Antonio earlier:

    Pray you, tell me this;
    If he should break his day, what should I gain
    By the exaction of the forfeiture?
    A pound of man's flesh taken from a man
    Is not so estimable, profitable neither,
    As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say,
    To buy his favour, I extend this friendship:
    If he will take it, so; if not, adieu;
    And, for my love, I pray you wrong me not.

    Now, either Shylock is lying, or he's telling the truth. I think he's telling the truth. He's in the money-making business, and there's no money to be made by killing Antonio (it would, in fact, be much worse for business; he would incur the wrath of the whole city thereby). It's better for his business in the long run if he buys Antonio's good-will with an interest-free loan, with some claptrap ridiculousness for the bond. There are no villainous asides to the audience a la Iago to let them know that Shylock is seriously hoping to kill Antonio here.

    It's a comedy. Having the bad guy killing babies and poisoning wells might dampen the mood somewhat. To claim that Shylock isn't conforming to Jewish stereotypes just isn't supportable without performing backflips of interpretation. Do you think it's just a coincidence that he's a moneylender, that he looooves his money, that he rails against limits to his charging of interest?

    And I wouldn't agree that Tubal actively goads Shylock into anything. He gives him news that overjoyed Shylock, and offers more information, but doesn't prod him and say how ya gonna fuck him up dog? I guess an actor could play Tubal in such a way as to suggest it, but it really isn't there in the text.

    Shylock doesn't have to be lying, precisely, when he tells Antonio he has no use for his flesh. He wants Antonio to sign. Maybe the plan isn't a solid goal in his head, but it's there. Arguing that the bond of flesh is entirely innocent until circumstance sours Shylock just isn't convincing for me. And there are villainous asides, just not explicitly about killing Antonio, they're about hating him.

  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Bogart wrote: »
    It's a comedy. Having the bad guy killing babies and poisoning wells might dampen the mood somewhat. To claim that Shylock isn't conforming to Jewish stereotypes just isn't supportable without performing backflips of interpretation. Do you think it's just a coincidence that he's a moneylender, that he looooves his money, that he rails against limits to his charging of interest?

    Well, those are the kinds of things Barabas was doing on stage, and "The Jew of Malta" was definitely a comedy (and very popular).

    To the extent those things are Jewish stereotypes, I'm not even sure they date back that far. Like I said, the stereotype of the Jew at that time tended to be different than that.
    And I wouldn't agree that Tubal actively goads Shylock into anything. He gives him news that overjoyed Shylock, and offers more information, but doesn't prod him and say how ya gonna fuck him up dog? I guess an actor could play Tubal in such a way as to suggest it, but it really isn't there in the text.

    Tubal alternates passages making Shylock feel horrible about what has been done to him, informing him of Jessica selling the ring for a monkey, etc., and then constantly reminds him about the ships that Antonio has lost. I'd call that goading.
    Shylock doesn't have to be lying, precisely, when he tells Antonio he has no use for his flesh. He wants Antonio to sign. Maybe the plan isn't a solid goal in his head, but it's there. Arguing that the bond of flesh is entirely innocent until circumstance sours Shylock just isn't convincing for me. And there are villainous asides, just not explicitly about killing Antonio, they're about hating him.

    He hates Antonio, but that's not necessarily villainous. After all, he gives good reasons why he hates Antonio; if anybody did to me what Antonio did to Shylock repeatedly, I'd hate that fucker too, and that has nothing to do with whether I'm Jewish or not (I'm not). Antonio spits on Shylock in the streets, AND tries to ruin Shylock's business. And for that, Shylock offers him money at no interest with no real expectation that Antonio won't be able to pay him back; Shylock himself admits that Antonio is a "good" man, meaning that he's good for the debt. Besides, as I mentioned above, at this point in the play, Shylock is still a reasonable man. Killing Antonio would gain him nothing and potentially cost him lots.

    Contrast that with, say, Iago, who never really gives a reasonable or consistent explanation of why he hates Othello.

    Brian888 on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    He doesn't have to be Iago or Barabas to be a villain. And yes, those Jewish stereotypes date back that far.

    I've seen the Tubal scene played where Tubal is oblivious to the anger he's producing in Shylock, which makes for more comedy. You can choose to believe that Shylock offers the bond with no thought to carrying it out, or not. For me, the choice of flesh as the bond is deliberate on Shylock's part, as at the very least, in the back of his mind, he's laying a trap he can spring later.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Brian888 wrote: »
    To the extent those things are Jewish stereotypes, I'm not even sure they date back that far. Like I said, the stereotype of the Jew at that time tended to be different than that.

    No, it really didn't.

    That sort of stereotype was built over time, from before the Crusades, up through the Reformation, and to the Elizabethan London that was Shakespeare's home.

    One of the biggest excuses made by Phillip the Fair and Clement V for taking down the Knights Templar was the fact that they participated in the Jewish practice of usury, so the moneylender/usury part of the image was present as early as the 14th century, some 250 years before the Bard lived. Usury was also listed in 11th century accounts as reasoning for the start of some pogroms that occured in the build up to the 1st and 2nd Crusades. The stereotypes were most definitely there before and during Shakespeare's time.

    What differentiates Shylock from Barabas isn't that he's so far different in characterization, it's that while he does engage in stereotypical Jewish pursuits, that isn't all that defines the man.

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    He doesn't have to be Iago or Barabas to be a villain. And yes, those Jewish stereotypes date back that far.

    I've seen the Tubal scene played where Tubal is oblivious to the anger he's producing in Shylock, which makes for more comedy. You can choose to believe that Shylock offers the bond with no thought to carrying it out, or not. For me, the choice of flesh as the bond is deliberate on Shylock's part, as at the very least, in the back of his mind, he's laying a trap he can spring later.

    I disagree, for the reasons I've stated above.

  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Brian888 wrote: »
    To the extent those things are Jewish stereotypes, I'm not even sure they date back that far. Like I said, the stereotype of the Jew at that time tended to be different than that.

    No, it really didn't.

    That sort of stereotype was built over time, from before the Crusades, up through the Reformation, and to the Elizabethan London that was Shakespeare's home.

    One of the biggest excuses made by Phillip the Fair and Clement V for taking down the Knights Templar was the fact that they participated in the Jewish practice of usury, so the moneylender/usury part of the image was present as early as the 14th century, some 250 years before the Bard lived. Usury was also listed in 11th century accounts as reasoning for the start of some pogroms that occured in the build up to the 1st and 2nd Crusades. The stereotypes were most definitely there before and during Shakespeare's time.

    What differentiates Shylock from Barabas isn't that he's so far different in characterization, it's that while he does engage in stereotypical Jewish pursuits, that isn't all that defines the man.

    Wait, hold on. It's indisputable that Jews were moneylenders back then (one of the few professions open to them in the public sphere), and that Christians by and large hated the idea of usury. What I'm asking about is whether the stereotypical idea of the money-loving Jew is that old, or whether that's a later invention. There is a potential difference there. Moreover, to the extent that the stereotype existed back then, did it exist in Elizabethan England, where Jews had been officially expelled since around 1290?

    Brian888 on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    The only things that can really be argued as being unique about Shylock as a character at the time is his prominence in a mainstream story and the fact that he's like the archetype of Jewish stereotypes because so many are combined into one person. He's literally the cloth from which Fagin is cut.
    Bogart wrote: »
    You can choose to believe that Shylock offers the bond with no thought to carrying it out, or not. For me, the choice of flesh as the bond is deliberate on Shylock's part, as at the very least, in the back of his mind, he's laying a trap he can spring later.

    The fact that the ending is entirely dependent on lawyering regarding him getting his flesh but no blood really makes any other interpretation of his motives completely untenable.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't think Iago is that good of a character. He's a satisfying villain, sure, but because he doesn't really have a "why the fuck are you doing this" he's a kinda odd character.

    I enjoy it very much, but he isn't some magnificently constructed character.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    I don't think Iago is that good of a character. He's a satisfying villain, sure, but because he doesn't really have a "why the fuck are you doing this" he's a kinda odd character.

    I enjoy it very much, but he isn't some magnificently constructed character.

    The best interpretations I've seen have him coming at it as a result of racial insecurity/prejudice. "How dare this Moor have this hot white wife and general good fortune!"

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't think Iago is that good of a character. He's a satisfying villain, sure, but because he doesn't really have a "why the fuck are you doing this" he's a kinda odd character.

    I enjoy it very much, but he isn't some magnificently constructed character.

    The best interpretations I've seen have him coming at it as a result of racial insecurity/prejudice. "How dare this Moor have this hot white wife and general good fortune!"

    Yeah, that's what most people come up with, and it works just fine and you can do a lot with it as an actor, but in text he's a bit cardboardy was my point.

    Either that, or he just wants more seed from Jaffar.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Either that, or he just wants more seed from Jaffar.

    Aha, so it's a furry thing going on.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan GT: Gasman122009 JerseyRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I remember the first time I really enjoyed anything from Shakespeare was sitting down with my mom as a freshman or sophomore in high school and watching Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. It was the first time I'd seen Shakespeare acted out, and it was the first time that I felt the comedy in real-time. And all of a sudden it all just made sense.

    Looking back at it now, I can't watch Keanu Reeves's play Don John as anything except a more serious version of Ted Logan. But it still hold a special place in my memory.

    TheCanMan on
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    The fact that the ending is entirely dependent on lawyering regarding him getting his flesh but no blood really makes any other interpretation of his motives completely untenable.

    I addressed this.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Brian888 wrote: »
    I addressed this.

    You can make the argument that at first Shylock may not have wanted the flesh (especially as loans at the time were much like mob rackets: pay us dis much or we break someting), but as the play goes on and he keeps getting slapped by the world, to argue that he doesn't start to think of it seriously, especially as he goes through such a lengthy back and forth at the end to try to get it is to ignore everything that happens after the first act and the speech you quoted.

    It's essentially, "Hey, this would never happen, but..." to "Hey, maybe..." to "Y'know what? Screw you all."

    He's a villain, but only inasmuch as the world shapes him over the course of the story; he's not a blackheart form the beginning or no one would reasonably go to him. He's an interesting figure because as much as his character traits are all stereotypes, he has a very believable motivational arc.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Brian888 wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    To the extent those things are Jewish stereotypes, I'm not even sure they date back that far. Like I said, the stereotype of the Jew at that time tended to be different than that.

    No, it really didn't.

    That sort of stereotype was built over time, from before the Crusades, up through the Reformation, and to the Elizabethan London that was Shakespeare's home.

    One of the biggest excuses made by Phillip the Fair and Clement V for taking down the Knights Templar was the fact that they participated in the Jewish practice of usury, so the moneylender/usury part of the image was present as early as the 14th century, some 250 years before the Bard lived. Usury was also listed in 11th century accounts as reasoning for the start of some pogroms that occured in the build up to the 1st and 2nd Crusades. The stereotypes were most definitely there before and during Shakespeare's time.

    What differentiates Shylock from Barabas isn't that he's so far different in characterization, it's that while he does engage in stereotypical Jewish pursuits, that isn't all that defines the man.

    Wait, hold on. It's indisputable that Jews were moneylenders back then (one of the few professions open to them in the public sphere), and that Christians by and large hated the idea of usury. What I'm asking about is whether the stereotypical idea of the money-loving Jew is that old, or whether that's a later invention. There is a potential difference there. Moreover, to the extent that the stereotype existed back then, did it exist in Elizabethan England, where Jews had been officially expelled since around 1290?

    If one is just focusing on England, then the 11-13th centuries, is when the concept of the money-loving Jew entered the collective consciousness of the English people. With a high proportion of the Jewish population working in moneylending, goldsmithing, and silversmithing, the Jews (in England, anyway) were rolling in dough so much that it started pissing off the landed aristocracy and a large number of nobles were facing destitution for defaulting on mortgages. It got to such a degree that Edward I (Longshanks, aka the asshole from Braveheart for those that haven't studied the period) passed the Statute of Jewry after returning from the 9th Crusade, in an attempt to take back control of the countries finances, and make a fat pile of cash for himself and his lords.

    After their official expulsion in 1290, there was no longer an identifiable Jewish population for people to interact (as lonelyahava noted, they were still there, they just either publicly converted to Christianity or practiced in secret, much like the Catholics would have to do once Anglicanism rose to prominence) and/or develop cultural symbiosis with, as such all that was left in the popular imagination were the stereotypes that Edward passed laws against and that's what stuck in the English mind until the mid-late 17th century.

    By Shakespeare's time the majority of practicing Jews in Europe had moved to the Eastern half of the continent (Poland-Lithuania, some of the German principalities, and the Ukraine), or lived in trading hubs like Venice. Even though he was far wider read that your average English man (i.e. pulling ideas for Dante, Boccaccio, etc...), Shakespeare would have still been a man of his time, and in his time there wasn't a very positive cultural view of Jews in English culture.

    Now, whether or not that means the stereotype, as you put it, existed could potentially be up for debate, but the majority of evidence points to, yes it was prevalent, and was most likely the dominant view of Jews that was held by Shakespeare's audience.

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I remember the first time I really enjoyed anything from Shakespeare was sitting down with my mom as a freshman or sophomore in high school and watching Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. It was the first time I'd seen Shakespeare acted out, and it was the first time that I felt the comedy in real-time. And all of a sudden it all just made sense.

    Looking back at it now, I can't watch Keanu Reeves's play Don John as anything except a more serious version of Ted Logan. But it still hold a special place in my memory.

    This is an important post.

    Shakespeare is for watching (and hearing) before he is for reading.

  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Othello is definitely my favorite of his plays. Iago is just an incredible villain.

    My favorite thing about Iago is that you don't really know why the hell he does it.

    The text was posted, but still.

    Solid gold awesome.

    I think that's why Iago is so much more interesting than Aaron. Aaron is a straight sociopath, a cruel and vile human being whose misanthropic tendencies make him largely difficult to relate to, or understand. Iago, on the other hand, is manipulative, cunning, and cruel - but his motivations aren't revealed to us. That mystery is what makes him so intriguing, because we are forced to guess as to why he does what he does.

    I've read and seen Othello many times, and the best conclusion I can come up with is that Iago does what he does, simply because he can. It's almost as if he stumbles upon this ability to manipulate others, and in so doing, he starts to elevate his own ego - using his lies as a way to wield power over others and validate his intelligence. He finds it rewarding, and like any good power trip, keeps pushing it to see just how far he can take his deception. I think it's also why we seem him laughing in the final scene - not because he has won, even though he has assuredly lost - but, rather, he's become so disconnected from everything around him that he considers his actions and their consequences to be a joke. And the sick reveal is the punchline.

    See, I always viewed Iago as the sociopath. He gives different motivations for himself that don't bear out over the course of the play, but always seem to be what the other person expects or wants to hear. He feels no attachment to anything or emotional connection, he just does what he does.

    Aaron on the other hand, and it's probably because of the way Harry Lennix played him in Titus, seems to me like a guy who is just goddamned pissed at everyone. He's black, and so he's been treated like he's less than human his entire life, and a man can only take so much. His whole "fuck the world" shtick falls apart the moment he sees his kid, which says to me that he just wants to be left alone and if these fuckers aren't going to let him go off and live in peace he's going to do everything he can to make their lives hell and their deaths quick and painful.

    Wait wait. As someone put above, Iago is "kind of" a mustache dweller. Aaron is a complete and total mustache dweller. The only reason he didn't pick a virgin and let her die in a railtrack (not before raping her, or having her raped and her hands and tongue cut off) is that trains didn't exist in 1600 :P

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Lolken wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Othello is definitely my favorite of his plays. Iago is just an incredible villain.

    My favorite thing about Iago is that you don't really know why the hell he does it.

    The text was posted, but still.

    Solid gold awesome.

    I think that's why Iago is so much more interesting than Aaron. Aaron is a straight sociopath, a cruel and vile human being whose misanthropic tendencies make him largely difficult to relate to, or understand. Iago, on the other hand, is manipulative, cunning, and cruel - but his motivations aren't revealed to us. That mystery is what makes him so intriguing, because we are forced to guess as to why he does what he does.

    I've read and seen Othello many times, and the best conclusion I can come up with is that Iago does what he does, simply because he can. It's almost as if he stumbles upon this ability to manipulate others, and in so doing, he starts to elevate his own ego - using his lies as a way to wield power over others and validate his intelligence. He finds it rewarding, and like any good power trip, keeps pushing it to see just how far he can take his deception. I think it's also why we seem him laughing in the final scene - not because he has won, even though he has assuredly lost - but, rather, he's become so disconnected from everything around him that he considers his actions and their consequences to be a joke. And the sick reveal is the punchline.

    See, I always viewed Iago as the sociopath. He gives different motivations for himself that don't bear out over the course of the play, but always seem to be what the other person expects or wants to hear. He feels no attachment to anything or emotional connection, he just does what he does.

    Aaron on the other hand, and it's probably because of the way Harry Lennix played him in Titus, seems to me like a guy who is just goddamned pissed at everyone. He's black, and so he's been treated like he's less than human his entire life, and a man can only take so much. His whole "fuck the world" shtick falls apart the moment he sees his kid, which says to me that he just wants to be left alone and if these fuckers aren't going to let him go off and live in peace he's going to do everything he can to make their lives hell and their deaths quick and painful.

    Wait wait. As someone put above, Iago is "kind of" a mustache dweller. Aaron is a complete and total mustache dweller. The only reason he didn't pick a virgin and let her die in a railtrack (not before raping her, or having her raped and her hands and tongue cut off) is that trains didn't exist in 1600 :P

    Except Aaron acts in defense of another at least once. Possibly more depending on how his interaction with Tamora is played.

    He's also pretty damned funny compared to Iago, who I find just plain dour.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tcmb5nLpfM

    Ice burn.

    Again, though, while I've read the plays I haven't seen Titus or Othello performed. I've watched Titus more than a few times, and the Fishburne/Branagh Othello I've seen once. That would definitely color my interpretation.

    Taramoor on
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    It's been a while since I read Othello but I was always under the impression that Iago was just pissed at being passed up for promotion.

    For which he devises a plan to just fucking destroy Othello and everything he loves.

    Because he's such a well-adjusted person.

    RT800 on
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    It's been a while since I read Othello, but I was always under the impression that Iago was just pissed at being passed up for promotion.

    Iago gives a bunch of different reasons for why he's so determined to destroy Othello, but none of them hold up under scrutiny.

    After a quick googling, it looks like there are entire collegiate theses dedicated to trying to figure out why the hell Iago does what he does.

    Theories range from being in love with Desi to being in love with Othello to just being a nihilistic prick.

  • shalmeloshalmelo sees no evil Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    It's been a while since I read Othello but I was always under the impression that Iago was just pissed at being passed up for promotion.

    For which he devises a plan to just fucking destroy Othello and everything he loves.

    Because he's such a well-adjusted person.

    The best Iago I've seen on stage played half like this, half as a racial thing. He was essentially a surly, nondescript middle-aged white dude raging because he believes that affirmative action cost him the job that was rightfully his.

    Steam ID: Shalmelo || LoL: melo2boogaloo || tweets
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    shalmelo wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    It's been a while since I read Othello but I was always under the impression that Iago was just pissed at being passed up for promotion.

    For which he devises a plan to just fucking destroy Othello and everything he loves.

    Because he's such a well-adjusted person.

    The best Iago I've seen on stage played half like this, half as a racial thing. He was essentially a surly, nondescript middle-aged white dude raging because he believes that affirmative action cost him the job that was rightfully his.

    I like this quote from Andy Serkis
    There are a million theories to Iago's motivations, but I believed that Iago was once a good soldier, a great man's man to have around, a bit of a laugh, who feels betrayed, gets jealous of his friend, wants to mess it up for him, enjoys causing him pain, makes a choice to channel all his creative energy into the destruction of this human being, and becomes completely addicted to the power he wields over him. I didn't want to play him as initially malevolent. He's not the Devil. He's you or me feeling jealous and not being able to control our feelings.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I resurrect this thread, for today is April 23, the day Shakespeare died and by most estimation was born (albeit with a difference of some fifty two years.

    I'm celebrating by reading Taming of the Shrew at the moment and will probably watch Tennant's Hamlet later on. Any of you Shakesman fans have special plans?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BobCescaBobCesca Is a girl Birmingham, UKRegistered User regular
    I'm keeping my eye on the BBC. They've had loads of adaptations and stuff on recently, and Radio 3, 4 and 4 Extra have a season of plays and programmes (including new productions of Twelth Night and Romeo and Juliet performed by the same cast, which includes David Tennant). There was also a wonderful production of Much Ado About Nothing on Radio 3 last Wednesday which I was listening to while driving down south.

  • RohanRohan Registered User regular
    Absolutely loved King Lear and his poetry. The rest is meh.

    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • Mr FuzmsMr Fuzms Auckland, New ZealandRegistered User regular
    So I've never been huge into Shakespeare, the bulk of my experience coming from the plays I had to study at school (Julius Caesar, Macbeth) but I caught a trailer for the new adaptation of Coriolanus, and then it was shown at the cinema local to me so I gave it a look.

    I've got to say I was fairly impressed! I found the language a little hard to follow at times, having to rely on tone and situation to figure out what might be happening, but I thought the performances of Ralph Fiennes, Vanessa Redgrave & Gerard Butler were particularly good, though the rest of the cast were enjoyable as well. I know that they've done some of these 'Shakespeare in a modern setting' things before with mixed success, but I thought they pulled this off pretty well. Though putting the guy who presents Channel 4 news in the UK in it was an...odd choice.

    Anyway, worth a look for those that are interested. Trailer below if you fancy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6M7q6ysGs

    Favourite line? "There is no more mercy in him than there is milk in a male tiger." I'd never noticed Shakespeare's ability for one-liners!

  • dojangodojango Registered User regular
    Brian888 wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    To the extent those things are Jewish stereotypes, I'm not even sure they date back that far. Like I said, the stereotype of the Jew at that time tended to be different than that.

    No, it really didn't.

    That sort of stereotype was built over time, from before the Crusades, up through the Reformation, and to the Elizabethan London that was Shakespeare's home.

    One of the biggest excuses made by Phillip the Fair and Clement V for taking down the Knights Templar was the fact that they participated in the Jewish practice of usury, so the moneylender/usury part of the image was present as early as the 14th century, some 250 years before the Bard lived. Usury was also listed in 11th century accounts as reasoning for the start of some pogroms that occured in the build up to the 1st and 2nd Crusades. The stereotypes were most definitely there before and during Shakespeare's time.

    What differentiates Shylock from Barabas isn't that he's so far different in characterization, it's that while he does engage in stereotypical Jewish pursuits, that isn't all that defines the man.

    Wait, hold on. It's indisputable that Jews were moneylenders back then (one of the few professions open to them in the public sphere), and that Christians by and large hated the idea of usury. What I'm asking about is whether the stereotypical idea of the money-loving Jew is that old, or whether that's a later invention. There is a potential difference there. Moreover, to the extent that the stereotype existed back then, did it exist in Elizabethan England, where Jews had been officially expelled since around 1290?

    If one is just focusing on England, then the 11-13th centuries, is when the concept of the money-loving Jew entered the collective consciousness of the English people. With a high proportion of the Jewish population working in moneylending, goldsmithing, and silversmithing, the Jews (in England, anyway) were rolling in dough so much that it started pissing off the landed aristocracy and a large number of nobles were facing destitution for defaulting on mortgages. It got to such a degree that Edward I (Longshanks, aka the asshole from Braveheart for those that haven't studied the period) passed the Statute of Jewry after returning from the 9th Crusade, in an attempt to take back control of the countries finances, and make a fat pile of cash for himself and his lords.

    After their official expulsion in 1290, there was no longer an identifiable Jewish population for people to interact (as lonelyahava noted, they were still there, they just either publicly converted to Christianity or practiced in secret, much like the Catholics would have to do once Anglicanism rose to prominence) and/or develop cultural symbiosis with, as such all that was left in the popular imagination were the stereotypes that Edward passed laws against and that's what stuck in the English mind until the mid-late 17th century.

    By Shakespeare's time the majority of practicing Jews in Europe had moved to the Eastern half of the continent (Poland-Lithuania, some of the German principalities, and the Ukraine), or lived in trading hubs like Venice. Even though he was far wider read that your average English man (i.e. pulling ideas for Dante, Boccaccio, etc...), Shakespeare would have still been a man of his time, and in his time there wasn't a very positive cultural view of Jews in English culture.

    Now, whether or not that means the stereotype, as you put it, existed could potentially be up for debate, but the majority of evidence points to, yes it was prevalent, and was most likely the dominant view of Jews that was held by Shakespeare's audience.

    Eh, you have to remember that even before Edward 1 kicked out the Jews, they were heavily controlled by the government; all Jewish lenders were directly under control of the crown, and they couldn't pass on property to their heirs; all their wealth (except for a small portion for the benefit of the widow) would pass on to the crown at their death. They also had to "loan" money to the king at zero interest with no chance of repayment; Richard 1 bankrupted the Jews of York in just this manner. Later, Edward just decided to cut out the middleman, as it were, by expelling the Jews and making them leave their property.

    I would say expelling them from England made it easier to reduce them to the Shylock caricture, since there wouldn't be any counter-factuals to the popular stereotype.

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    On such an anniversary, it is worth remembering that no one writer in the language has written more consistently bad-ass prose or blank verse on the matter of death.
    Macbeth wrote:
    She should have died hereafter;
    There would have been a time for such a word.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.
    Antony wrote:
    O mighty Caesar! dost thou lie so low?
    Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils,
    Shrunk to this little measure? Fare thee well.
    I know not, gentlemen, what you intend,
    Who else must be let blood, who else is rank:
    If I myself, there is no hour so fit
    As Caesar's death hour, nor no instrument
    Of half that worth as those your swords, made rich
    With the most noble blood of all this world.
    I do beseech ye, if you bear me hard,
    Now, whilst your purpled hands do reek and smoke,
    Fulfil your pleasure. Live a thousand years,
    I shall not find myself so apt to die:
    No place will please me so, no mean of death,
    As here by Caesar, and by you cut off,
    The choice and master spirits of this age.

    So out with it. Other great Shakespeare death moments?

    Edd on
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    I remember, back in the 80's, when General Gadaffi issued a declaration that Shakespeare was actually a Libian Sheik.

    Here's a quote: "Gaddafi is a great Shakespeare fan," says Khan. "He believes that Shakespeare was actually an Arab immigrant to Britain called Sheikh Zubeir."

    Being Brazilian, I had no formal contact with Shakespeare and his work on my education. I knew of him, of course, because Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and others are part of our cultural references too.

    The thing is, even though I fancy myself as having a pretty decent grasp of English, I just can't read the Bard in the original. I wasn't trained for that in any way. And, of course, there are no English spoken plays I can go to around here.

    All I gots is the movies. So I envy you bastards a lot, because the little I can grasp of his works makes me slobber all over myself, its that good. I'll be here at the corner, hating you. Carry on.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.

    General Chang was the best part of Star Trek VI.

    Hmm...time to go internet hunting for Christopher Plummer doing Shakespeare. And I've got the Patrick Stewart Hamlet from 2009 d/l'd from Amazon to watch.

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    You can buy Hamlet translated into Klingon. It seems to me Hamlet is an un-Klingon character though. Would a Klingon do that much whining and moping, and that much fretting about whether he should kill the guy who killed his father?

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    wandering wrote: »
    You can buy Hamlet translated into Klingon. It seems to me Hamlet is an un-Klingon character though. Would a Klingon do that much whining and moping, and that much fretting about whether he should kill the guy who killed his father?
    I had (have? might be in a crate somewhere...) the Klingon Hamlet, and the commentary (yes, there is actually a commentary!) goes into this - how Hamlet isn't a hero so much as an example of decadent young Klingons who don't act but dither about. The whole thing was done pretty cleverly,with a good understanding of the play, the (fictional) culture and a sense of irony, never taking itself too seriously. Geeky, yes, but not stupid, nor does it lack self-awareness.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    That's a good explanation - he's unKlingon because the story's a morality play about how a Klingon shouldn't act. I'll have to check the book out some time.

  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    I think a lot of Shakespeare is lost when it isn't seen on stage. Reading it gets you only so far. Movies do not have that interaction of the audience and the actors. They get you only part of the story. When you see the play even in its most minimalist style presentation the feel and meaning of the words comes through much more clearly.

    Jumping in a little on this one, but I second this and what V1M said: Shakespeare didn't write his plays to be read (compare to a closet drama like Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral) His plays were written to be seen and heard. Now, because of this, his text is insanely rich--the text tells you everything you need to know to understand the characters and their motivations. It also means the text can be difficult for some people to sit and read through. My best success with teaching Hamlet has always included heavy viewing of different versions and then comparing it to the text. Watching actors interpret Shakespeare's text is always very insightful to what he was saying and the points he was making.

    Also, I loved Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet. It was incredibly true to the text and beautifully envisioned. The only other version I really enjoyed was a local theatre's version that focused heavily on the parents. Too many versions focus so much on the creepy teenaged "love," when so much of the play is meant to reflect on the parents and the adult situation flowing around them.

    Lastly, the BBC Macbeth with Patrick Stewart is stunning. It was on Netflix for a while. It may still be up there. It's absolutely worth a watch. Stewart does an incredible job.

Sign In or Register to comment.