Early in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, our protagonist Macbeth is drowning in internal conflict. Macbeth’s ambition is battling with his morals. Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, has nothing to block the cruel intent of her ambition. Once their deed (murder of the King) is done, the effects of guilt weigh heavily on both characters, at different points in the play. Lady Macbeth gets consumed by guilt late in the play, as evidenced by her “unremovable spot” and eventual suicide. Macbeth’s guilt fades after he sees Banquo’s ghost. The ruthless cruelty in Lady Macbeth’s soul seems to transfer to Macbeth. By the end of the play, Macbeth is a murderous tyrant devoid of guilt while his wife assumes the guilty conscience left vacant by her husband.

Shortly after Macbeth orders the murders of Banquo and his son Fleance (Fleance escapes, or “flees”, a typical Shakespearian play on words), he sees the ghost of Banquo. It is notable that the other people in the room, particularly Lady Macbeth, cannot see this ghost. Popular film adaptations often skip visually representing the ghost. This ties in well with Macbeth’s unique (unique to him and the now deceased Banquo) ability to see the supernatural. This “gift” (or curse) in the character of Macbeth is shown elsewhere in the play by his interactions with the witches. The appearance of Banquo’s ghost is the climactic scene in the play and it is the turning point for Macbeth. He loses his ability to feel guilt and remorse and begins his unrestricted descent into madness. Shakespeare foreshadows this in Macbeth, writing “It will have blood, they say: blood will have blood” (III. iv. 121-122). Macbeth says this just after the lords, and the ghost of Banquo, leave his awkward dinner party. Macbeth’s words here should be interpreted as his desire for more bloodshed.

Lady Macbeth becomes notably absent after the dinner party where Macbeth’s guilty conscience transfers to her. Macbeth seems to intuitively know that the guilt he passed on to her would lead to her death. After he is informed of her suicide, he nonchalantly says “She should have died hereafter” (V.v. 17). Lady Macbeth famously asks the spirits to unsex her so she can gain the cruelty of masculinity. After guilt destroys her, she pleads for her femininity to be restored, crying out “All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand” (V. I. 53-55). By the end of this play, the two Macbeths’ ambitions are flipped, an effect of the man’s lack of guilt and remorse and the woman’s overabundance of it.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth. Edited by Sylvan Barnet. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.

One of William Shakespeare’s many messages in Macbeth pertains to the cruelty associated with masculinity. Shakespeare throws an interesting twist into Macbeth by having his female characters spur on this male cruelty. Macbeth is the cruelest character in the play, but he doesn’t start out this way. Macbeth’s ambition to be king leads him into his murderous ways, but he only gains this ambition after hearing a prophecy from three (female) witches and then being emasculated by his wife. Early in the play, Macbeth does not seem to believe himself worthy of the positions the witches ascribe to him. He shuns the prophecy, stating

“But how of Cawdor? The Thane of Cawdor lives,

A prosperous gentleman; and to be King

Stands not within the prospect of belief” (I. iii. 72-74).

Macbeth’s dilemma, “to kill the King, or not to kill the King”, swims back and forth in his mind until his wife gets a hold of his thoughts. Lady Macbeth has the cruelty more common in a male Shakespeare character. She asks spirits to unsex her and turn her breast milk into poison. She speaks of dashing a smiling baby’s brains out. When Macbeth says “I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent”, little did he know, the spur he needed was his wife (I. vii. 25-26). The last we hear of Macbeth’s good side comes in the following line, “Prithee, peace! I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none” (I. vii. 45-47). This comes just before Lady Macbeth brings out the dark masculinity in Macbeth by saying to him

“What beast was ‘t then

That made you break this enterprise to me?

When you durst do it, then you were a man” (I. vii. 48-50).

Macbeth’s hamartia is his ambition; however, like Julius Caesar, he is not wise. The character of Macbeth appears to have the cruelty and ambition always reserved for Shakespeare’s male characters, but this cruelty is only unlocked by the unsexed women in the play. It sometimes appears that Macbeth is a dunce, a puppet being controlled by the play’s cruel and unsexed women. The witches and Lady Macbeth are unsexed; they are not the typical female characters of Shakespeare. If these women had feminine personalities, they would be background characters with little impact on the storyline. If they had feminine personalities, Macbeth would be quite a different story.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth. Edited by Sylvan Barnet. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines honor as “Great respect, esteem, or reverence received, gained, or enjoyed by a person or thing; glory, renown, fame; reputation, good name” (“honour | honor, n.”); the OED defines noble “Of a person or people: illustrious or distinguished by virtue of position, character or exploits. Now only as passing into senses” (“noble, adj. and n.1”). An honorable man may have a good name, but he most certainly has good character. Without the good character, he will not gain the great respect mentioned in the definition of honor. A noble man is, more often than not, born into nobility. His good name is all he needs to be considered noble. In William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the words used to describe Macbeth are: brave (captain), noble (King Duncan), worthy (Banquo), worthy and worthiest (Duncan again), Great and worthy (Lady Macbeth), noble (Lennox), worthy (Macduff), etc. There is no honor surrounding Macbeth’s name.

In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus is famously referred to as honorable and noble. The honor heaped upon Brutus in Mark Antony’s speech is rooted in sarcasm; however, by the plays’ end it seems Brutus really was an honorable man. Julius Caesar is referred to as many things: noble, mighty, great, and ambitious. If he is referred to as honorable, I have yet to find the quote.

King Duncan closes the second scene of act one in Macbeth by stating “noble Macbeth hath won” (I. ii. 67). Consider the quote that the three witches end the first scene of act one with “Fair is foul, and foul is fair” (I. i. 10). Macbeth has won; therefore, he is cursed. The king’s statement foreshadows the heavy troubles that lay ahead for the anti-hero Macbeth. Banquo’s words feed into this idea that what is fair is foul when he says, “why do you start, and seem to fear Things that do sound so fair” (I. iii. 51-52). Macbeth is noble, and he was won; therefore, his future nightmares are a justification of the weird sister’s prophecy, fair is foul. Macbeth, and his Lady Macbeth, won two tickets to royalty; the same two tickets that begin their descent into murder, madness, and their inevitable demise.

Brutus dies with honor in Julius Caesar; therefore, he dies an honorable man (who happens to also have nobility attached to his name). Macbeth’s nobility is a curse. Like the noble Julius Caesar, he is murdered. Of course, it is certain that Macbeth deserves to die by the time he is murdered; it is not certain that Caesar truly deserved to die. Caesar’s character is not as well defined as is Macbeth’s. Perhaps if Macbeth were honorable, he wouldn’t have fallen so far, so fast. Perhaps if Macbeth were honorable, this story would not be the great Shakespearian tragedy that is. As we all know, Shakespeare really knew what he was doing when he wrote his fascinating plays.

“honour | honor, n.”. OED Online. March 2019. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/view/Entry/88227?rskey=ACpimW&result=1 (accessed April 05, 2019)

“noble, adj. and n.1”. OED Online. March 2019. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/view/Entry/127485?rskey=wJfgDd&result=3&isAdvanced=false (accessed April 05, 2019).

Shakespeare, William. Barnet, Sylvan, editor. (1998). The tragedy of Macbeth. New York: Signet Classics.

In William Shakespeare’s Othello, Rodrigo is an atypical Shakespearian fool. Shakespeare’s other fools usually have some wisdom; they often take on the appearance of a clown or a jester. Othello does have an actual clown, but his is appearance is so brief (14 lines in act 3) and his purpose so minimal (messenger/comic relief in a darkening plot) that many observers of the play may forget that there was a clown. Rodrigo is a fool in the literal sense of the word. Shakespeare’s more typical “wise fool” doesn’t exist in this play. It can be argued that numerous other characters are fools in this play, including (and perhaps especially) Othello. They are all manipulated far too easily by dishonest Iago. The direction of the play swings on the balance of a handkerchief? This play consists of a collection of fools and a dishonest character who is not nearly as brilliant as his manipulation of others would suggest that he is. The women in the play, who for the most part seem to have little effect with their words, are wiser than the men. Emilia, wife to Iago, does finally spill the beans on dishonest Iago’s use of the handkerchief. By the time a woman’s voice is recognized in the play, it is too late.

Desdemona is the personification of purity and goodness, even if Shakespeare interestingly put “demon” in the middle of her name. To Othello, she “seems” to be a demon. If only men would listen to their wives. This proverb about how men never listen to their wives still exists today. In the Elizabethan/Jacobean era, men really didn’t listen to their wives. Today, we men do find ourselves in predicaments that could have been avoided if we had only listened to our wives. If this handkerchief scenario were presented to most husbands of today, they would likely listen to their wife’s explanation and do everything in their power to give her the benefit of the doubt. Othello does not listen to poor Desdemona’s denial for a millisecond, it’s enough to bring tears to our eyes. An angle often overlooked is that Othello and Desdemona have only known each other briefly. Having said that, Othello lets the evil seed of jealousy planted by Iago consume him far too easily. This play is full of irony. Perhaps the strongest display of irony pertains to just how easily the great general Othello is broken down to a picture of pathetic weakness by the Shakespearian “curse” of love and the evil sin of envy.

Shakespeare, William, and Alvin B. Kernan. The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice: With New and Upated Critical Essays. Signet Classics, NY: New American Library, a Division of Penguin Group, 1998.

Professor Ian Smith of Lafayette University perhaps states it best “The only world in which Othello is not about race is in a white privileged world” in the Folger Shakespeare Library’s podcast “Othello and Blackface.” Recent scholarship has tried to push this narrative, that it was more about an “outsider” than a person with dark skin. I feel Shakespeare scholars are getting bored. This is an obviously flawed theory. In the first act of William Shakespeare’s Othello alone: Iago refers to Othello as a black ram, Brabantio refers to Othello’s sooty bosom, and Roderigo refers to Othello’s thick lips. These would all be considered racist and offensive remarks in today’s world. The tone of racism is set early in this play. It should be noted that Iago is the villain, Roderigo is the fool (not a traditional Shakespeare fool, but a fool nonetheless), and Brabantio does not have a large part.

The senate and the Duke show Othello much more respect in scene three of act one than do the three characters I just mentioned. Of course, the “feel-good” non-racial tone given by the Duke is taken back when he comments “Your son-in-law is far more fair than black” (I. iii. 285). He is showing respect to Othello while disrespecting all black people, in the same sentence. Othello is a villain by today’s standards, though he is portrayed as a victim in the world of Shakespeare. Today, a murderer is a murderer, unless the act is in self-defense. Iago’s manipulation of Othello represents the white man’s control and inevitable destruction of the black man’s life.

Imagine an African American James Bond with white chalk all over his face. This must be how African-Americans feel looking at Laurence Olivier’s face covered in charcoal. Laurence Olivier’s Othello acts in an exceptionally well done film adaptation directed by Stuart Burge. Sadly, the adaptation is ruined by a hideously disturbing swath of what appears to be charcoal smeared all over Olivier’s face. Laurence Fishburne is seen very briefly putting a white mask over his face as to say “its about time” that a black actor plays the part of Othello in a major production. Fishburne did just this in the Oliver Parker directed 1995 film adaptation of the play. William Shakespeare wrote this play not to suggest that the racist attitudes portrayed by the characters are acceptable; he wrote it to demonstrate injustice. In Shakespeare’s time, the idea of a white man putting blackface on did not upset anyone. It was likely viewed no differently by Shakespeare’s 17th century audience than was Shakespeare’s common practice of having young boys play the part of his female characters. The injustices of the time were acknowledged by some, but not to the extent that blackface was seen as racist.

Bogaev, Barabara. “Othello and Blackface.” SoundCloud. March 2017. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://soundcloud.com/folgershakespearelibrary/othello-and-blackface.

Shakespeare, William, and Alvin B. Kernan. The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice: With New and Upated Critical Essays. Signet Classics: New American Library, a Division of Penguin Group, 1998.

In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus turns out to truly be an honorable man. Some may debate this but it seems the case. In William Shakespeare’s Othello, there is no debating the fact that “honest Iago” is anything but honest. The play is named for Othello, but the name that lives on in infamy today is Iago. A man who famously says “put money in thy purse” (I. iii. 335) over and over while convincing everyone around him that money is not important to him. His name, which he famously stated in a manipulative lie, was more important to him than his purse. It is fitting that his name should be used to represent the two-faced evils in today’s society.

In Marjorie Garber’s Shakespeare and Modern Culture, the author brings up numerous cases where Iago’s famous line “But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes him poor indeed” ((III. iii. 164-166)

has been reworded by modern speech writer to represent the current political climate. Has the United States lost its good name? Garber’s book was published in 2009 and she references the Iraq War and Abu Ghraib military scandal as events that stole our country’s good name. If the United States lost its good name in 2009, I can’t imagine the political climate of 2019 is doing anything to get it back.

Garber discusses the O.J. Simpson parallel to Othello. O.J. was a well known charismatic black man who most of us believe murdered his beautiful and well-known ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. In the O.J. story, there is no Iago. Iago’s cruelty turns Othello into a sympathetic victim. Today, if someone murders their spouse (or ex-spouse), they are a really bad person, Iago or no Iago. It is easy to forget in Shakespeare’s Othello, that Othello is a bad guy. Going crazy for love out of jealousy is not an acceptable reason to murder one’s spouse today. It seems that in Shakespeare’s story, suspicion of adultery justifies Othello’s murder and turns him into a victim.

Garber, Marjorie B. Shakespeare and Modern Culture. New York: Anchor Books, 2009.

Shakespeare, William, and Alvin B. Kernan. The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice: With New and Upated Critical Essays. Signet Classics: New American Library, Penguin, 1998.

Listening to Orson Welles discuss the difficulties he encountered, it is a wonder he was able to finish his unique 1952 adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Othello at all. We Shakespearian types often like to read along to film adaptations, this is nearly impossible with Welles’s film. The film is very short and leaves out half of the lines. If that sounds like a criticism of the film, I do not mean for it to be. The brilliance of Welles is showcased by his visionary approach to this classic tragedy.

Most of us who know the story feel disappointed if we don’t see Iago suffer at the end of the film. Welles decided to take the flashforward approach, showing Iago suffering from exposure in a trap during the first scene. Iago is defined by Welles as an “agent of chaos”. He builds a web with his manipulation; so it is quite fitting that he should meet his end rotting in a webbed trap. Welles discusses the unique beginning to his film by saying that Iago will be eaten by birds and scorched by the sun in this trap. At the film’s end, when the credits begin to roll, the trap is seen dangling as a reflection in the water. Iago can not be seen, yet the viewer knows he is there. The visual reference to the trap is small and probably goes unnoticed by some. In the 1950s, people had small, low-resolution televisions if they had anything at all, making this dangling trap very hard to see at the film’s end. Iago’s webbed cage is spinning in circles with him in it. This is a fitting ending for Iago, who spun a web of manipulation throughout the film. Iago’s ending symbolizes him getting caught in his own trap.

The BBC production of Othello, starring Anthony Hopkins, is a well-made 1981 adaptation. This production clearly shows much more of an interest in staying true to the text than Welles’s film. The opening scene contains Iago and Roderigo, as Shakespeare intended. The final scene gives the audience the belief and hope that Iago will be punished in a manner that is crueler than death itself. It does not allow the audience to see Iago’s extreme suffering, it only shows him receiving a stab wound before he is taken away by guards. Welles’s production gives the audience satisfaction by letting us know Iago will suffer, and shows us how he will suffer. Welles’s production seems like a completely different film than does the BBC production. The story gets through to the viewer just the same. Orson Welles’s brilliant visionary approach works very well, although it is quite different from most Othello productions we have seen.

Filming Othello by Orson Welles. Performed by Orson Welles. West Germany: Produced by Klaus Hellwig, Juergen Hellwig, 1978. YouTube. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvqeQt8aLnU.

William Shakespeare. Othello. Directed by Jonathan Miller. Ambrose Video, 1981. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://arizona.kanopy.com/video/othello-6

Shakespeare, William. Othello. Directed by Orson Welles. Janus Films (The Criterion Collection), 1952. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://arizona.kanopy.com/video/othello-5

The obvious question early in William Shakespeare’s Othello pertains to the validity of Desdemona’s love for Othello. Desdemona answers this question sufficiently in the first act. A better thematic question pertains to Iago, who might just be the most vile Shakespeare villain of all. I made the mistake of reading the Dramatis Personae before reading the play. In the introduction of characters that precedes the first scene, Iago is referred to as a villain. Those who don’t make this mistake don’t know Iago is a villain during the first act, though clues are placed. The question surrounding Iago’s foul nature is not answered as quickly as the question of Desdemona’s love. The audience is clued in on Iago’s evil nature much faster than are the other characters.

Brabantio says to Iago “thou art a villain” in the first scene, but it seems to be only a result of Brabantio being angry with Iago’s statement about his daughter (I. I. 114). The statement by Brabantio is a very subtle hint at best. Iago’s manipulation of Roderigo is a hint that may clue in those schooled on Shakespeare, yet someone reading or watching the play for the first time probably has no idea how terrible Iago will become. Roderigo is not a strong willed person, which lessens the weight of Iago’s manipulation of him. Othello is not a weak character like Roderigo, even if he is also weakened by the Shakespearian “curse” of love. A question for additional thought asks “is Iago really an evil mastermind, or is everyone else in the play an idiot?”

Shakespeare implements excellent dramatic irony in this play (as he is known to do) by having the main character call the villain honest, over and over. By the time final scene of Act 5 arrives, everyone but Othello knows that Iago is a scumbag. Iago is responsible for all the blood that surrounds Othello, yet Othello is still praising him. Othello tells Iago’s wife Emilia “My friend, thy husband; honest, honest Iago” (V. ii. 151). The answer to a thematic question should have relevance throughout the whole play. While Othello is the protagonist in this play, everything that happens in the play is the result of the antagonist Iago’s actions. In classic Shakespearian fashion, this play’s theme is one of dramatic irony. The audience is slowly clued in to the foul nature of “honest Iago’s” character, but the great Othello doesn’t understand until it is far too late for him and his loved ones.

Shakespeare, William, and Kernan, Alvin. The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice: With New and Updated Critical Essays and a Revised Biblography. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

William Shakespeare uses pride and envy well in his telling of the tale of Julius Caesar. The first appearance of Caesar shows him calling to his wife Calphurnia, to which Casca replies “Peace, ho! Caesar speaks” (I. ii. 2). This suggests that Caesar speaking should immediately draw the townspeople into silence. Shortly after this, Caesar refers to himself in the first person while addressing the soothsayer, stating “Speak; Caesar is turned to hear” (I. ii. 17). The opening scene, where Flavius and Marullus suggest that Caesar wish to keep the townspeople “all in servile fearfulness”, set the theme of Caesar’s sinful pride into motion. Caesar’s lifespan in the story is reasonably short; therefore, Shakespeare can waste no time in establishing that Caesar is guilty of the worst of the seven sins (at least in his literary world), pride.

Envy is clear in the conspirators, especially Cassius. Envy is not clear in conspirator Brutus, increasing the difficulty of Cassius’s manipulation of him. Evidence for the lack of envy in Brutus is sprinkled throughout the play. As the play opens by showing Caesar’s sinful pride, it closes with Marc Antony and Octavius Caesar realizing that Brutus really was an honorable man. He was the only honorable man in the group of conspirators. Caesar is the embodiment of pride, Cassius is the embodiment of Envy, Brutus is the embodiment of honor and nobility.

The irony with Antony’s realization can be understood by listening to his speech, where he repeatedly called Brutus honorable sarcastically. After the murder, Antony did not see any of the conspirators, including Brutus, as honorable. He saw them as murderers, but he had to cleverly craft an Asiatic style speech rich in sarcasm to turn the commoners against the conspirators. In act three, the suddenly outspoken Marc Antony states “Brutus is an honorable man” over and over (III. ii. 96). A couple of times during his act three speech, he states that all conspirators were honorable. He does this with the intent of proving to the people that they were not honorable men.

In the final scene, the realization is verbalized by Antony and Octavius. Marc Antony declares of Brutus, “This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he Did that they did in envy of great Caesar” (V. v. 68-70). Octavius Caesar orders “Within my tent his bones tonight shall lie, Most like a soldier ordered honorably” (V. v. 78-79). This legendary play opens with strong evidence of Caesar’s tyrannical level of pride and closes with a realization of Brutus’s honorable and noble character.

Shakespeare, William, William Rosen, and Barbara Rosen. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar: With New and Updated Critical Essays and a Revised Bibliography. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Nicolas Walker’s independent 2014 production of William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is a relatively unknown film adaptation. Walker presents some progressive changes in this film, which can be found on YouTube. There is a large female presence in the limited cast. The film’s setting is different than we are used to seeing in Julius Caesar films. There are only a handful of actors. The crowd of commoners listening to Mark Antony’s speech consists of just 10-15 people. The most important act in the play (3) takes on a extremely different feel without the large crowd. Other productions, including Herbert Wise’s 1979 production, have historically employed much larger crowds.

The setting in Walker’s film has a stronger connection to the outdoors than the other Julius Caesar films I have watched. I couldn’t help but notice the sunshine and palm trees early in the film. This sets up a brighter mood than most Julius Caesar productions. One thing that really stands out as different about this film is the ratio of plants and trees to Romans. While the plants and trees are there in other productions, they usually go unnoticed due to the large number of actors. Productions historically have focused on stages and statues, while maintaining a dark theme. Walker’s film does have numerous dark scenes, yet it does not create a dark theme.

One thing Walker introduces that I have not seen in Julius Caesar before is a woman in the soothsayer’s role. Walker’s independent production will never gain a large audience, but I admire his efforts in increasing the presence of women in Shakespeare. The male to female ratio in Walker’s production (excluding the conspirators) is about 50/50. As Shakespeare scholars well-know, productions from long ago often used boys to play the female characters.

The idea of a female conspirator is a radical thought. I am not suggesting that Walker’s production will lead to Juliet Caesar and the female conspiracy, but it is an interesting possibility. Would a female conspirator change the story too much? Patrick Stewart proposed the brilliant concept of playing a white Othello surrounded by black characters, a plot inversion. Why can’t we have a production where Julius is Juliet and the conspirators are all female? Shakespeare traditionalists might have a collective heart attack if a producer were to take up this radical concept, yet there is no reason why it can’t be done. A queen Juliet Caesar who refuses the crown three times may not be as radical as it sounds. Patrick Stewart’s “white Othello” sounds just about as radical; but once a radical concept is put into play, it quickly becomes deradicalized.

References

Shakespeare, William, William Rosen, and Barbara Rosen. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar: With New and Updated Critical Essays and a Revised Bibliography. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Shakespeare, William. “Julius Caesar.” Kanopy. Directed by Herbert Wise. Ambrose Video, 1979. Accessed February 1, 2019.

Shakespeare, William. “Julius Caesar.” YouTube. Directed by Nicolas Walker, 2014. Accessed February 02, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EesdCfqGE8s&t=2358s.