Essay Instructions: This assignment is for Pheelyks:
Assignment write two pages on the reading materials and one page on the film.
READING:
Riverside:
Shakespeare's Text, 55-69;
Introduction to “Titus Andronicus,” pp. 1065-1068;
“Titus Andronicus,” pp. 1069-1100.
Cambridge Companion:
"Shakespeare and English History" (167-182)
FILM
Titus Andronicus (Director, Julie Taynor, with Anthony Hopkins, Jessica Lange, 2000).
WEB SITES
Titus: The Play
http://www.bartleby.com/70/index37.html
Titus: A Searchable Version
http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/titusandronicus/
GOAL: The goal of this unit is to understand the nature and uses of dramatic structure in Shakespeare's early tragedies, including Aristotelian, Elizabethan, and contemporary tragedy. Focused analysis of and commentary on Titus Andronicus as an example of revenge tragedy and the development of the Shakespearean villain with roots in both the English dramatic tradition and in psychology guide the student's learning to an understanding of how a character type is developed through experience and experimentation. This understanding is specifically focused on the role of Aaron in Titus Andronicus as a prototype of Iago.
DISCUSSION: If Shakespeare's tragedies may be divided in early and late, then we may use this chronology as a way to see how he developed certain aspects of that kind of drama. Let's focus on one aspect of tragedy, the villain. In this course, we will see the development of the villain throughout the playwright's career: Aaron in Titus Andronicus, Richard in Richard III, and Iago in Othello. First, approach your understanding of Shakespeare villain in terms of what is considered “realistic” in our own time, that is, psychological development in which we always ask what motivates a character. Realism in our contemporary sense means psychological realism, an inner quality of a character who acts “in character.” This is why we put more emphasis on character than plot. But in Shakespeare's time, plot was as important as character and very often more important. In the classical sense, plot is more important that character and that is why fate or destiny plays such an important role in the Greek tragedies. Today, we generally believe in “free will,” but we must remember that at other times this was not necessarily the case. Shakespeare seems to be divided on the subject of free will versus predestination, though the Puritans of the time were determinists. What would a non-psychological realism be like, one that accepted the notion that realism was one based on fate and not free will? Notice that the villains that we are focusing on appear to be unaccountably evil, without motivation or at least without motivation that can serve as a good cause for their actions. What is an “accepted calumniator”? Are these villains really the leftovers of medieval belief in the devil? Research The Demonology of James I—and recall that he was the same man who sponsored the King James Version of the Bible.
Why is Aaron so evil? What do you make of the speech he gives when captured in which he lists evil actions he has committed for no reason—are these examples of pure evil? How does this play into Shakespeare's use of the genre of the time called “revenge tragedy”? What is revenge tragedy? Does a devil need motivation? What do you make of the change Shakespeare makes between Titus Andronicus and Othello in which the villain is changed from a Moor to a European? How does Aaron use sex to accomplish his goals? Is Tamora a villain? Is Titus? What is the theme of the play?
Anthony Hopkins runs the danger of being typecast as a cannibal. The original ad for Titus, “Revenge is Sweet,” was perhaps a little overplayed, but the pun nonetheless does underline the horror of the play—however distastefully (excuse the pun). If the Greeks could use incest as a theme, the Elizabethans were not to be outdone in the use of taboos. What is your take on the use of taboos in serious drama? Is the use of cannibalism over the edge in Titus Andronicus? In the version of the play you saw, do you think the play is structurally faulty because the action is always rising—that is, there is no comic relief, each horror is capped by a greater horror in the next scene, which means that there is no place for a dramatic climax or “turning point” in the action? For many years, Titus was considered Shakespeare's worst play, so full of violence that many even thought that Shakespeare couldn't have written it. This is obviously not the interpretation of the director of the film, Julie Taynor. What is your feeling concerning this play? Is there more to it than sex and violence? What is the redeeming theme of the play? What do you see as Titus' tragic flaw (hammartia) that brings him down? Is it the unreasonable loyalty to the state that he follows in the name of honor? Is this play, in fact, a coded anti-military play, one that denounces mindless allegiance to a state that does not deserve it? Does Hopkins bring this theme off well? And here's a difficult question worth your consideration: Why does Titus laugh when he sees his sons heads delivered to him? He says that he has “no more tears,” but is that answer adequate? Is he mad (insane) or, like Hamlet, does he pretend to be mad in order to trick his antagonists—that is, as Hamlet says, is there a “method in his madness”? Is this another device that is tried out first in Titus Andronicus and later fully developed in Hamlet?
Is Jessica Lange's portrayal of Tamora convincing? Is she a villain or does her suffering justify her actions? Is Shakespeare's portrayal of her and Titus consistent?
