Analysis of Shakespearean Plays
Ethnicity is often a source of conflict in most aspects of society; Victorian era notwithstanding. This is evident in two of Shakespeare’s dark characters (pun not intended) Aaron in Titus Andronicus and Othello. Considering the context of racial discrimination during this time, it may be safely assumed that both characters suffered prejudiced treatment. However, the use of ethnicity as a plot device differed with these two characters. One is used literally to show the racial discrimination suffered by the character and trigger the consequences that followed while the latter is a figurative representation of abstract ideas.
In the play of Titus Andronicus, Aaron is depicted as the catalyst of cruelty in most scenes. In Act II, it was upon his advice that Chiron and Demetrius raped and mutilated Lavinia. Moreover, it was his actions that led to Titus’s sons Quintus and Martius to be framed for Bassanius’s murder. He buried the bag of gold and trapped Titus’s two sons with Bassanius’s corpse. Clearly, such diabolical acts were all directly caused by Aaron. However, not even a glimpse of his motive for all his acts could be seen. A racial stereotype of blacks is well-established in this act. Although he plays lover to Tamora, the eventual empress of Rome, not much genuine love is seen between them. In the same act, Tamora asks to be made love to and he also acts as the hand of her scheming. There seems to be little complexity in Aaron’s character; only a two-dimensional black archetype of evil. Only when his son is introduced do we actually see any semblance of dichotomy in his character. He rejoices his son’s birth even though Tamora demands their son’s death. It is here that we see Aaron’s capability of love and goodness. Possibly, Aaron was not born evil or heartless; it was the circumstances that made him so. Considering an enduring an entire lifetime of white supremacy and prejudice in society, it is not improbable to harbor such hatred and disgust for the said society so much so that committing terrifying misdeeds is already beyond moral incapability. It was the very discrimination he had to endure that turned him into the stereotype they all insisted he was.
The use of racial conflict is different in Othello. Compared to Aaron, Othello is not completely a victim of discrimination because of his status as a general. He is a vital component of the military and civil service in Venice and the Venetians are well aware of that. Although he is not considered as inferior to the whites, he is still figuratively isolated because of his color and exotic culture. His tragedy of murdering his beloved Desdemona and himself however, was motivated by Iago’s vengeance and lies rather than victimization of society. Hence, his black color here is seen as a symbolism of his tragedy which is contrasted well by Desdemona. Throughout the play, Desdemona fulfills her role as the Moor’s firm but understanding wife. Her actions were never that of infidelity although Iago convinced Othello it was. Even at the final scene, she was already aware of her looming death by her husband’s hand, she absolves him instead of resents him for it. This cleansing of sins that Desdemona shows before her death is what complements the bitter tragedy that Othello had to suffer.
In comparison, both Aaron and Othello endured at some part in their lives, racial prejudice from their peers and superiors. However, the usage of their color and ethnicity differed radically in their respective plays. Whereas Aaron’s actions were influenced by the suffocating discrimination from stereotyping, Othello’s color revealed the depth of his tragic story.
King Lear
A modern adaptation of King Lear would do well to identify the classical Shakespearean play with the contemporary audience. It will be a battle of wealthy magnates whose kingdoms are their corporations. Lear, played by Liam Neeson, would be a CEO of a powerful multinational company who wishes to split his stocks between his three daughters. Their test will be a sales pitch to how much they love their father. All Cordelia (Amanda Seyfried) shows is a blank canvas which says that no amount of material can embody her love for her father. Blinded by rage, Lear grants her no stocks and divides the current ones between Regan (Keira Knightley) and Goneril (Natalie Portman). His French CFO (the king of France) still insists that he will marry her. Once Regan and Goneril reveal their true colors, Lear realizes his mistake and wanders off downtown with his personal assistant Kent (John Cusack) and his and mischievous secretary Frank (Adam Sandler).
Another company, albeit smaller, is owned by Gloucester (Geoffrey Rush). His illegitimate son Edmund (Daniel Radcliffe) tricks him into thinking that his legitimate son Edgar (Orlando Bloom) is plotting to murder him by leaving around malicious emails and files that incriminate the latter. The adaptation follows the same structure and flow of the original plot but in a modernized setting. Instead of an army, Cordelia leads the matter to court to clean up the mess but is defeated by the skilled lawyers of Edmund. The rest of the events follow through: a shootout between Edgar and Edmund where the latter dies, Goneril’s murder of Regan and eventual suicide, Edmund’s execution of Cordelia and Lear’s death. The survivors Albany (Tom Cruise), Kent and Edgar then resolve what’s left of the company. The adaptation will be packaged as a story of entangled love, pride, betrayal and hunger for power that only the wealthy and influential are capable of.
Horatio and Enobarbus
In this scenario, two characters both loyal to their tragic heroes are being compared: Horatio, the great scholar who is Hamlet’s closest friend Marc Antony’s friend and adviser, Enobarbus. In comparison, both are very close to their respective protagonists and are also quite learned; often serving as the voice of reason for their friends. However, their circumstances differ although hardly in magnitude. Hamlet’s actions are guided primarily by vengeance for his father while Marc Antony is conflicted with his love for Cleopatra and duty to his country and people. In these situations, we’ll see how each character reacts.
Hamlet was driven to avenging his father’s death and such notions need some guidance if it hopes to meet fruition. This guidance comes in the form of Horatio. During the third act, a troupe of actors arrives and Hamlet uses this to test his uncle’s guilt. He enlists the help of Horatio to see how Claudius would react. Without a shadow of a doubt that his close friend saw his father’s ghost who demands the usurper’s death, he agrees to watch the king for signs of a troubled conscience. Once the scene ensues, Claudius is attacked by his guilt and flees the room. Here, Horatio’s unyielding support to Hamlet is seen fervently. One tragic flaw of Hamlet is his inability to bring his thoughts into action, to play out his plans. Once he has a goal in mind, his plan is scattered into bits and pieces and he acts rashly. Horatio steps in to regulate Hamlet’s mess of a mind. Such actions are clearly that of a good friend’s: unyielding trust, support in all endeavors however rash or ridiculous, a voice of reason and composure in times of mild insanity.
Horatio’s greatest feat was to witness the story of Hamlet from beginning to end. He witnessed the apparition of Prince Hamlet’s father and has unwaveringly supported Hamlet’s means to avenge his father’s death. He also served as the voice of reason to Hamlet’s confused mind. But most of all, after the final scene, it was Horatio who served as the memory of Hamlet and his tragedies; who stood as the legacy of the tragic hero. He fulfilled his final promise to Hamlet not to succumb to suicide but to stand as a remembrance and testament to the tragedy of Hamlet and the royal family. Such a friend is not common in any era.
In another play, Enobarbus is the loyal friend and supporter of Marc Antony, a triumvir of Rome who fell deeply for the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra. Again, the protagonist of this story is quite rash and impulsive especially since he’s rather conflicted between his personal time and military and civil duties. Although throughout the play, the errors he has committed grew larger in scale, Enobarbus stood resolutely beside his superior; always voicing out his opinions. Even after Marc Antony returned to Rome and married Caesar’s sister Octavia, he wisely counseled that Antony will still return to his beloved Cleopatra. And return he did. Although Enobarbus is a friend to all three triumvirs, he still placed his allegiance to the sometimes foolish Marc Antony. Unfortunately, after losing to Caesar and returning to Egypt to avoid Caesar’s retaliation, Enobarbus moves to Caesar’s side. Although this sudden change of heart is understandable, it does not show a good sense of loyalty for Enobarbus. Leaving someone at the time when they need support the most does not make a good friend. Close to the final scenes, Enobarbus crumbles under the weight of his guilt and dies. This makes for a fitting retribution for leaving Antony when he believes that the triumvir is done for.
Personally, both characters would make good friends under ideal conditions. However, when placed under the strenuous conditions of such tragic heroes, the worst sides of each person are revealed. Since Enobarbus had a change of heart at the most crucial moments, I’d rather choose Horatio who would support me no matter how silly or radical my actions may be and would continue to serve as my guide.
