Sections

Friday, September 23, 2011

Monday 26th classwork & homework

Classwork: to watch Oliver Parker's version of Othello. (a register will be taken)

Homework: to write a review (minimum A4 page long) of as much of the film as you're able to see in a single period. (There's a review of the film on the blog you may find handy to generate ideas). Due Thursday 29th.

Consider in your review:


  • Whether the play belongs to the character Iago or Othello (there's an article on this subject on the blog)

  • Laurence Fishburne's interpretation of the role compared to Laurence Olivier's (clips of Olivier as Othello are available to watch on youtube)

You could also take a look at Orson Welles' version of Othello (clips are again in youtube) and compare his heavily visual film to Parker's.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Lesson Monday 26th

On Monday 26th I will be out of school on a Y9 Shakespeare trip, but your lesson will still take place. I will post further details plus that week's homework on this blog. I'm currently considering arranging for you to watch Oliver Parker's film adaptation of Othello.

Thursday classwork & homework

Classwork is to read & annotate Act Two, Scene One. A question to consider when reading is Iago's attitude towards women.

Homework is to write a diary account for Iago, in which he reflects on all that has happened in Act One (hand in Thursday 29th). Have fun exploring his mind!

Consider including reflections on

- Cassio's promotion
- Othello's marriage
- his developing plot to destroy Othello's peace of mind
- why he is so determined to ruin Othello

For further inspiration explore the blog to see how critics, directors and actors have interpreted the workings of Iago's mind (for instance James Earl Jones thinks Iago is a tragic rather than evil character - see excerpt below)

"I contend that Iago is the most complex character that Shakespeare ever created. He has also been called vengeful and nihilistic, a man of 'diseased intellectual activity, with an almost perfect indifference to moral good or evil.'

Iago is dangerous to those who love and trust him because he convinced them over time that he loves them in return, and that he can be trusted absolutely.

The tragedies that happen to Othello and Desdemona are grand, classical tragedies. There is a much more modern tragedy in the character of Iago. His is a very contemporary tragedy that should not be thrown away."

*Connor deliver your homework asap Friday to the English staffroom or feel my wrath! Alex, I'd like your homework, due Monday, as well, Friday.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Oliver Parker's Othello

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.2/Stone.html

A thought provoking review of Oliver Parker's Othello published in the Boston Review.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Orson Welles on Othello




In 1952 Orson Welles adapted and directed Othello for the cinema with himself playing the title role. Though a troublesome shoot that took over three years to complete, Welles' heavily Film-noir influenced movie creates images that match the grandeur and eloquence of Shakespeare's language.

In an excerpt below from an

interview with

Peter Bogdanovich

Orson Welles discusses the characters' Othello and Iago.


PB: Why do you think Othello is destroyed so easily? Do you think he’s a weak man?

OW: He’s destroyed easily because of his simplicity, not his weakness. He really is the archetype of the simple man, and has never understood the complexity of the world or of human beings. He’s a soldier; he’s never known women. It’s a favorite theme of Shakespeare’s. A curious thing about Lear, too: Lear clearly knows nothing about women and has never lived with them at all. His wife is dead – she couldn’t exist. Obviously, the play couldn’t happen if there were a Mrs. Lear. He hasn’t any idea of what makes women work – he’s a man who lives with his knights. He’s that all-male man whom Shakespeare – who was clearly feminine in many ways – regarded as a natural-born loser in a tragic situation. Othello was another fellow like that. Total incomprehension of what a woman is. His whole treatment of her when he kills her is the treatment of a man who’s out of touch with reality as far as the other sex is concerned. All he knows how to do is fight wars and deal with the anthropophagi and “men whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders”.


PB: That’s his tragedy, then.


OW: Yes.


PB: He could not imagine a person like Iago.

OW: No, and neither could a lot of Shakespeare’s critics. As a result of which we have eight libraries full of idiot explanations of Iago – when everybody has known an Iago in his life if he’s been anywhere.


PB: There are several moments in the movie which give the impression that Iago does what he does because it’s in his character, rather than that he’s plotting for some particular reason.


OW: Oh, he has no reason. The great criticism through all the years has been that he’s an unmotivated villain, but I think there are a lot of people who perpetuate villainy without any motive other than the exercise of mischief and the enjoyment of the power to destroy. I’ve known a lot of Iagos in my life. I think it’s a great mistake to try to motivate it beyond what is inherent in the action.
PB: You could say he was like the scorpion that followed his own character.


OW: Well, yup [laughs].


PB: Iago is certainly the most interesting part in the play.


OW: Shakespeare is like no other artist when his characters start to live their own lives and to lead the author against his wishes. In Richard II, Shakespeare is absolutely for Richard, but nevertheless he has to do justice to Bolingbroke. And, more than that, he has to make him seem real, human – so that suddenly this man Bolingbroke takes life and pulls off a large part of the play. You see Shakespeare trying to hold him back: nothing doing, Bolingbroke is launched! A very interesting theory has been put forward by some scholars; according to them, Shakespeare not only played small roles, but large ones. They think now that he played Iago and Mercutio – two second-level roles which steal the play from the stars…


PB: You said somewhere that there was an implication of impotence in your Iago.


OW: Yes. I don’t think that is necessary to the truth of the play, but it was the key to MacLiammóir’s performance, that Iago was impotent. It isn’t central, but it was an element that we used for the actor, as a means of performing the part. In the play, it’s pretty clear that isn’t so, and when I did the play in the theatre later, there was no suggestion of it. But I think it’s a perfectly valid way of doing it, though I wasn’t anxious for the audience to understand it, not trying to inform them of it – if the audience can find it, more power to them. To use the Stanislavsky argot, it was basically something for the actor “to use”. I do a lot of that with actors. I’m always making fun of the Method, but I use a lot of things that are taken from it.


PB: Does Othello feel guilt at the end – after Iago’s proven guilty?


OW: Depends on how you play it.


PB: In your picture.


OW: I’ve forgotten, because I remember my performance in the theatre much more clearly than in the movie, and I revised a lot of my ideas of playing it.

PB: Well, then, in the stage production.


OW: I don’t think “guilt” is the right word. You know, Othello is so close to being a French farce. Analyze it! All he’s got to do is say, “Show me the handkerchief,” and you ring down the curtains. Being that close to nonsense, it can only come to life on a level very close to real tragedy – closer than Shakespeare actually gets. And Othello is so blasted at the end that guilt is really too small an emotion. Anyway, he’s not a Christian – that’s central to the character. And Shakespeare was very, very aware of who was a Christian and who wasn’t, just as he was very aware of who was a Southern European and who was a Northern, who was the decadent and who was the palace man, and the outdoor man. These things run all the way through Shakespeare.


PB: There’s an implication at the end that Othello understands, even almost forgives Iago for what he had done.


OW: He didn’t forgive him.


PB: Well, understood.


OW: Yes, it was this terrible understanding of how awful he was which drains him of hate. Because when something is that awful you can’t react to it that way. He becomes appalled by him.


PB: The look between them is filled with ambiguity.


OW: That’s a very interesting moment in the play.


PB: Do you think Othello is detestable in his jealousy?


OW: Jealousy is detestable, not Othello. He’s so obsessed with jealousy, he becomes the very personification of that tragic vice. In that sense, he’s morally diseased. All Shakespeare’s great characters are sometimes detestable – compelled by their own nature.


PB: So are your characters.


OW: Well, you could say it, I think, about all dramas, large or small, that attempts tragedy within the design of melodrama. As long as there is melodrama, the tragic hero is something of a villain.


PB: Why did you give Roderigo a white poodle?


OW: Because Carpaccio’s full of them. And it’s not a poodle, it’s a tenerife – very special kind. We had a terrible time getting it. All the dandies in Carpaccio fondle exactly that dog – it’s almost a trademark with them, like Whistler’s butterfly; they’re always clinging to those terrible little dogs.

Watch the opening scene of Orson Welles' Othello:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fETm6neCEJ0&feature=related

Saturday, August 20, 2011

'I hate the Moor' Kenneth Branagh performs Iago



Othello - Act 1, scene 3 "I hate the Moor"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItEfJhf0oc&feature=related

Iago and the nature of evil


What sort of evil does Iago represent in Othello? Consider how literary critic A. C. Bradley answers the question below.



'Iago stands supreme among Shakespeare's evil characters because the greatest intensity and subtlety of imagination has gone to his making, and because he illustrates in the most perfect combination the two facts concerning evil which seem to have impressed Shakespeare most.

The first of these is the fact that perfectly sane people exist in whom fellow-feeling of any kind is so weak that an almost absolute egotism becomes possible to them, and with it those hard vices - such as ingratitude and cruelty - which to Shakespeare were far the worst. The second is that such evil is compatible, and even appears to ally itself easily, with exceptional powers of will and intellect. In the latter respect Iago is nearly or quite the equal of Richard, in egoism he is the superior, and his inferiority in passion and massive force only makes him more repulsive. How is it then that we can bear to contemplate him; nay, that, if we really imagine him, we feel admiration and some kind of sympathy? Henry the Fifth tells us:

There is some soul of goodness in things evil,
Would men observingly distil it out;

but here, it may be said, we are show a thing absolutely evil, and - what is more dreadful still - this absolute evil is united with supreme intellectual power. Why is the representation tolerable, and why do we not accuse its author either of untruth or of desperate pessimism?

In the first place, Iago is not merely negative or evil - far from it. Those very forces that moved him and made his fate - sense of power, delight in performing a difficult and dangerous action, delight in the exercise of artistic skill - are not at all evil things. We sympathise with one or other of them almost every day of our lives. And, accordingly, though in Iago they are combined with something detestable and so contribute to evil, our perception of them is accompanied with sympathy. In the same way, Iago's insight, dexterity, quickness, address, and the like, are in themselves admirable things; the perfect man would possess them. And certainly he would possess also Iago's courage and self-control, and, like Iago, would stand above the impulses of mere feeling, lord of his inner world. All this goes to evil ends in Iago, but in itself it has a great worth; and, although in reading, of course, we do not sift it out and regard it separately, it inevitably affects us and mingles admiration with our hatred or horror.

All of this, however, might apparently co-exist with absolute egoism and total want of humanity. But, in the second place, it is not true that in Iago this egoism and this want are absolute, and that in this sense he is a thing of mere evil. They are frightful, but if they were absolute Iago would be a monster, not a man. The fact is, he tries to make them absolute and cannot succeed; and the traces of conscience, shame and humanity, though faint, are discernible. If his egoism were absolute he would be perfectly indifferent to the opinion of others; and he clearly is not so. His very irritation at goodness, again, is a sign that his faith in his creed is not entirely firm; and it is not entirely firm because he himself has a perception, however dim, of the goodness of goodness. What is the meaning of the last reason he gives himself for killing Cassio:

He hath a daily beauty in his life
That makes me ugly?

Does he mean that he is ugly to others? Then he is not an absolute egoist. Does he mean that he is ugly to himself? Then he makes an open confession of moral sense. And, once more, if he really possessed no moral sense, we should never have heard those soliloquies which so clearly betray his uneasiness and his unconscious desire to persuade himself that he had some excuse for the villainy he contemplates. These seem to be indubitable proofs that, against his will, Iago is a little better than his creed, and has failed to withdraw himself wholly from the human atmosphere about him.'


To continue reading this discussion follow the link below to p.154 of "Othello" from A. C. Bradley's book Shakespearean Tragedy available to read online. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33323542/Othello

A. C. Bradley (1851-1935) was a professor at Oxford. His book Shakespearean Tragedy (1904) was one of the most significant works of Shakespearean criticism of the twentieth century. Bradley has sometimes been criticised for writing of Shakespeare's characters as though they were real people.