University of Amsterdam - Faculty of Humanities
Art and Cultural Studies - Master in Theatre Studies
11587776
Jonathon Freeman
“Playing the villain; Actor fascination
with a Shakespeare riddle; Iago.”
Table of contents
Introduction 4 Chapter 1 Framing Iago 13 Iago as The Villain 13 Chapter 2 Theoretically 15 Iago Origins 15 Theatre Studies: PIister on Information and Soliloquies 17 Theatre Studies: Donahue on Forces, Ensemble and Character 24 Tragedy, Meta-Theatre and the Ironist 31 Chapter 3 Conceptually 34 Eagleton’s Evil Incarnate 35 A Religious Mouthpiece 42 Jealous Possession 46 Chapter 4 Historically 51 Theories of the Human Kind 52 Anti-theory 58 Chapter 5 Theatricality: De<initions and applications 61 Chapter 6 Identi<ication 64 Schoenmakers Conventions 64 Tullman and Sympathy for the Devil 68 Chapter 7 Psychopathy 72 Developments in Theatre and Psychopathy; West, A. C. Bradley and Cleckey 72 Badfella Iago 75 Chapter 8Playing Iago 81 Legacy 81 Showmanship 83 Chapter 9 Performances: four in<luential incarnations, for my performance and the paper 86 Hoskins - Loveable Rogues 87 Globe Othello - The Hypnotic Train Wreck 89 Parker Othello - Our Golden Boy 92 McKellen - Intimacy 95 Chapter 10 Actor research: preparation informing my performance 99 Illuminating Findings 99 Iago in Melodrama and Melodrama in Iago 103 Chapter 11 My own performance: tying research together in a reading and re<lection on my performance - Freeman Iago 106 Approach 106 Production 107 Interpretation 108 ReIlection 110 Closing Thoughts and Conclusions 112 References 118 Images 123
Introduction
While recently teaching Theatre in Nagoya, Japan, I involved myself in some community theatre, the highlight of which was playing Iago in a local reimagining of Othello. I had such a time with the play and particularly with this character, as it seemed to be the most theatrical part I had ever made a partnership with; certainly the most disturbing and murderous, but also the most fun and complicit with the audience. Intrigued by the fellow and the role, I have found Iago to be both a popular Iigure and a puzzle. What are the distinguishing features that make him of interest to the actor, audience and scholar? Might a contemporary audience experience pro-attitude feelings (including fascination, sympathy, identiIication and attraction) for Iago and how might this be possible? I will tackle the question by examining the literature, and on the other hand bring my own performative experience to the table, in order to shed some light on the issue. The primary objective is to examine different approaches to Iago and the potential for feelings of fascination towards him. What exactly do we like about him? What is the discernible bandwidth in contemplating the Iigure in this way? The current examination will draw upon two primary phases of research; the research conducted for this paper, and the research conducted as an actor in preparation for performance. Both will be used here, to 1 highlight connections made at various points throughout the process in its entirety. Finally, the study involves a personal reading or translation of the Iigure, which I then apply to my own performance. The relevance and signiIicance of the current examination, is in the analysis it provides from an actor perspective, in dealing with Iago as a theatrical problem to explore. The paper also seeks to make links between research and personal performative practice. From my Iirst meeting with Iago, the focus of my curiosity has been with his appeal. I am, shall we say, pro-Iago. The question of attraction to Iago assumes a certain ‘specialness’, making him unique, different… memorable. Othello is in the title role, he is our protagonist and (albeit ambiguous) tragic hero, but it is Iago that somehow seems to makes his own space in our theatrical hearts. The fact that just six years ago he even received his own spin-off novel, may account for this. An awareness of Iago’s history as a space, into which all manner 2 of discourse has been cast, may also be suggestive of his fascinatory capacity; as a human, with a believable persona of whom we can postulate motivation in order to rationalise behaviour; The performance occurred June 2017 and I began preparations December 2016. 1 Snodin, D. (2012). Iago. Henry Holt and Co. 2and as a demon, a malevolent force of Iictional destructive scale; a theatrical convention or device, creating an unfolding of events and whipping up emotional turmoil; a sign, a “green-eyed monster”. There may also be an intermingling between these modes of perception. 3 Being pro-Iago, detachment is difIicult when engaging with criticism - it only creates deeper imaginative bonds with the Iigure. Sourcing information without looking for (and Iinding) something praiseworthy or interesting about him, becomes near impossible. It is also, all a very personal affair. Writing about him in the initial stages, I described; the “time we have for a Ilirtation with Iago”. Since then, there has been a shift in attitude towards the Iigure, beyond Ilirtation, to a love affair; a poisonous one. In addition to all Iago’s dark imagery of poisons and spells, we may also Iind it in his actions and perhaps in his motivation. It infects us. Iago “poisons the audience, the other characters, and the critics themselves” , actors too 4 are amongst his victims. The brand of poison Iago administers, is what makes our relationship with him a very personal affair. Dachslarger believes that with Iago, “Shakespeare holds the mirror up to nature, not the window, and the reIlection is largely what we project, not what he tells. To label and categorise the villain is merely to verbalise these projections”. 5 As is the case with any individual’s reading of Iago, according to Dachslarger, he is the kind of villain we make him to be. He also proposes that “attempts to rationalise and and justify Iago’s behaviour on non-dramatic grounds - serve to destroy the very efIicacy and supremacy of Iago’s role as a dramatic villain”. 6 Clearly for this critic, the mystery of the Iigure is the source of his allure. The focus of this paper lies with these more dramatic and theatrical concerns, regarding the Iigure. An audience may Iind him neither attractive nor fascinating - he may indeed be a monster - but I will argue that there are structures of appeal, inherent in his theatrical construction, of interest to the actor especially. The “play text and the element of character in particular cannot be completely exhausted of its signiIicance by one production or one actor”. As Donahue 7 Othello, Act 3. Scene 3. Line 1817. Any references to the text will be cited in the following fashion, using the 3 online resource www.opensourceshakespeare.org; A3.S3.L1817. Pechter in Kolin, P. C, “Othello and Interpretive Traditions” (review), Theatre Journal, Dec 2000, 52, 4, p.591. 4 Dachslarger, Earl L. (1976). The Villainy of Iago: “What you know, you know”. CEA Critic, Vol 38, No.3, March. p. 5 10. Ibid., p.4. 6 Donahue, T. J. (1993). Structures Of Meaning. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p.57. 7
reminds us here, the possibilities for Iago are limitless, even without the ambiguity within Othello. What is my own take on all of this now, at the end of the journey? What do I believe to be a way of making the ‘riddle’ of Iago sing for contemporary audiences? In order to answer this question I will take the following approach. Viewing Iago as a Iigure, may ‘free’ the character, or help expose his dramatic applications. In Chapter 2, theatrically analytical 8 modes are consulted in order to account for Iago, from a more theoretical point of view. This assists in acknowledging the environment the Iigure exists within, as Iago and our perceptions of him, are not created in a vacuum. So, it is important to ask, what kind of theatrical 9 construct is he? His line “I am not what I am”, along with all the other Iago utterances which 10 address his villainy, put him in a very unique position, as far as information (what he, we and the others know) is concerned. It highlights the innately performative nature of the character and his speech about his “peculiar end” is rather important in this regard. It also heightens 11 the already tangible irony within the play. What is there, structurally identiIiable, in addition to the text itself, of relevance here? PIister provides us with levels of Iigure conception, that involve ‘personiIication’, ‘type’ and ‘individual’. These are extremely useful and applicable categories to work from in examining the Iigure, forming the basis of the current exploration of ways for framing Iago. The work of both Donahue and PIister - only available within the 12 last 25 years - offers a framework (or a grammar, as they see it) and though this does not dismantle the puzzle, it makes things all the more sensical and revealing of ‘Mr. Shaxberd’s 13 brilliance. “Force” is actually one of the Iirst notes found in my performance script for Othello, to describe Iago. Is it easy to view Iago as a force (as Donahue’s study does), because he is 14 See PIister, M. (2000). The Theory And Analysis Of Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. The terms ‘Iigure’ 8 and ‘character’ will however be used fairly interchangeably here. See Donahue, op. cit. 9 Othello, A1.S1.L71. Which Szondi tells us is a reversal of the Old Testament God’s description of himself. Szondi, 10 P. (2002). An Essay On The Tragic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p.44. Othello, A1.S1.L62. 11 PIister, op. cit., p.179. 12 The Iirst recorded performance was on November 1st 1604, the King’s Men playing at Whitehall for James 1. 13 According to court records, the play was written by one ‘Shaxberd’. https://notevenpast.org/ourstories/othello-a-stage-history/ It was then interesting to read Donahue’s description of the dramatic forces at work within a text. Donahue, p. 14 47.
simply not conceivable as a human? Is such an agent of destruction too inhuman to be real? This dilemma rather suits would-be psychopathic Iago’s, who are commonly referred to as ‘monsters’. If we apply semiotics and the notion of forces to Othello, all we really get is the possibility of a map, which can shift. The puzzle is conjured once again. The term ‘riddle’ is actually a preferred term in capturing the task at hand, and ‘bringing life’ to the riddle is perhaps a more appropriate analogy for the general approach, in reading Iago. He may be one, many or all of the things he is described as being, depending on how we engage with the Iigure. Through what lens do we examine or enjoy him? Are we readers, spectators, critics, general public or performers? In this case, it has involved dramaturgically examining responses, reception and performances, making my own judgements based on connections with my mode of engagement, as an actor and as an academic. Donahue claims to use semiotics as a means of discovery and not an end in itself, 15 which seems like an appropriate approach to take here. What then may Iago represent? Most of the ground work here concerns the question of motivation, that is, if you don't buy Iago’s information (Rand is the only notable case of one who doesn’t ). When engaging with the 16 research, it is important to remember to be clear on which angle we are approaching Iago from, along with the relevance and value of source material, to the present argument. One position (primarily a literary one) coming to bear on this reading of Iago is found in chapter 3, based on Terry Eagleton’s conceptions of evil. Here, evil is a brand of conscious destruction that derives its being from a desire for nothingness. There seems to be power in the void here and the idea of nothingness created of nothing (alluded to by Emilia in the play ) aligns with 17 a certain conception of Iago. When Toni Morrison describes evil, she speaks of “how it dances and the music it inspires. It’s clothing, its nakedness, its sexual disguise, its passionate howl and its danger”. It is not hard to understand pro-attitude feelings towards a representative of 18 such allure and this is precisely Morrison’s point - it is the one thing that disturbs her the most about evil. Initial notes of reIlection on my performance, speak of viewing Iago as a ‘blank performative canvas’. On this canvas could be painted characters, emotions, relationships, interactions. Donahue, op. cit., p.28. 15 See Rand, F. P. (1950). "The Over Garrulous Iago". Shakespeare Quarterly 1 (3). pp.154-161. 16 “jealous souls will not be answered so. They are not ever jealous for the cause, but jealous for they’re jealous. It 17 is a monster begot upon itself, born on itself”. Othello, A2.S4. Goodness: Altruism and the Literary Imagination, Morrison, T, Harvard Divinity School, published December 18 14, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJmVpYZnKTU&feature=youtu.be
Void, rather conveniently, is also the realm of psychopaths and in chapter 4, I will examine this and a number of other approaches that have been used historically, in examining Iago. Constantin Stanislavsky (whose methods I was trained in at Theatre School) believed that the desires of the character constitute a sort of ‘score’, the actor then creatively interprets. If we look for the semiotics of Iago - Iago as a sign - what might we Iind, if anything, about his motivational score and dramatic function? The paper will provide an overview (of some capacity) of the literature, reIlecting on past approaches to Iago, though such a task feels at times to be as impossible as Shakespeare’s doublet. Most of this literature is 20th century, 19 with a little centurial-swing either way, illustrating interpretational shifts and perhaps progressions, in how he has been received and played. Tullman tells us that ‘sympathy with the devil’ - here, immoral characters of Iiction - may be possible, via the ‘fascinated-attention’ approach. After a short consideration of theatricality, chapter 6 will argue that if we can view villains as “attractive, interesting curiosities”, we may feel pro-attitudes towards them. However, Schoenmakers reminds us 20 that “(s)omebody or some situation is attractive or desirable according to the subjective ideas, norms, values and concerns of a spectator”. On a level, actor fascination may also include 21 audience fascination, as the actor (hopefully) sees his part through the eyes of the audience, in his choices for delivering performance. With regards to my own, audience reception is a problematic issue, as there is no evidence (bar responses on the video recording) as to how my performance was received. In chapter 7, the position of particular interest to the paper - Iago as psychopath - will be examined. This reading is not new, but perhaps of some renewed interest in this current time, for its potential potency. When considering the question of motivation, this perspective presents some fascinating and very theatrical possibility. More links with void become possible, with regards to how pretending (acting) may conceal an emptiness of emotion - The Doublet is cited by the doubtaboutwill collective, as a piece of evidence in questioning the authorship of 19 Shakespeare’s plays. The mystery and ambiguity involved in their search is quite apt here. “To Shakespeare lovers everywhere, as well as to those who are encountering him for the Iirst time: know that a great mystery lies before you. How could William “Shakspere” of Stratford have been the author, William Shakespeare, and leave no deIinitive evidence of it that dates from his lifetime? And why is there an enormous gulf between the alleged author's life and the contents of his works? In the annals of world literature, William Shakespeare is an icon of towering greatness. But who was he?”. https://doubtaboutwill.org See Tullmann, K. (2016). "Sympathy And Fascination". The British Journal Of Aesthetics 56 (2). pp.115-129. 20 Ibid., p.143. 21
essentially, a lack of humanity. The recent emergence of a modern genre of ‘psycho-Iilms’, which when watching Othello as cinema, appears a match with regards to both plot structure and a central psycho-character. Rather revealing of the attraction and allure of this, Rafter explains; “Many viewers enjoy identifying with characters who cleverly evade responsibility, mow down their enemies, and defy legal authorities. Moreover, because psychopaths are so far off the normal curve, behaviourally, their characters can be amusing, gripping or spectacular - or all three at once”. 22 It should be pointed out, though I was aware that Iago could be read as a psychopath during actor preparation, it was rather unwittingly that I created such a reading, merely as a product of my focus on ‘doing’ (part of the Stanislavskian method) and showmanship. Though as actors we play ‘others’ (someone other than ourselves), there is a kind of attraction for the role which differs signiIicantly to ourselves. At the same time, there is a fascination for how this ‘other’ might connect with ourselves. As chapter 8 will discuss, the desire of actors to play villains is a Iine example of this. The appeal also lies in showcasing the skills required, in making the villain relevant and engaging. From this perspective, villains bring with them a level of challenge; a gauntlet for Great Ones. As Berkoff tell us; “for a villain you need to be a very very good actor. Therefore always the best actors play villains; Ian McKellen, Laurence Olivier, the best”. Creating villains, especially attractive ones, might begin 23 to involve a degree of ego (Iitting of a study on Iago). But as we shall see, there may be justiIications, beyond actor ego, for making him so. For actors playing Iago, the game involves a little more than just playing a villain. As will be argued in this paper, it is a case of a villain, playing the villain - adding another performative, and highly theatrical dimension all together. Any research on Iago in performance will Iind a long list of monumentally well-respected Professional Liars who’s names appear as pivotal players and interpreters. This, as chapter 9 will show, is also suggestive of the allure he has for the accomplished actor. Are the big Shakespearean actors (Great Ones) known for being ‘of that time’, indicative of the age? Or is it because they broke with established traditions? Either way, this section will look at four Rafter, N. (2005). Badfellas: Movie psychos, popular culture, and law. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Law and Popular 22 Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp.341. See Figures 3 & 4 for examples of how this appeal is commercialised and made attractive to the modern consumer of entertainment. Five Minutes With: Steven Berkoff. smtm: Entertainment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzkgAAMwyIE. 23
examples of contemporary performances, available for viewers on Iilm. We must remember that via the powerful and manipulative media of Iilm, Iigures can feel even more human. The method applied here in examining the Iilms, is to see how Iago is portrayed in contemporary representation. This marks a directional shift in the paper, towards production - a multi-medial expression - which will be more fully introduced into the discussion. Each performance is considered on two levels; as preparation for the role and regarding connections with the current research. What readings are possible in viewing these productions i.e Iago as a personiIication, as a human, as a dramatic construction, as part of the particular production? All these Iago’s are translated and presented by high-calibre UK actors. Branagh, it turns out is a pin-up boy for jealousy; his Iago certainly feels emotion, and perhaps even feels for Othello. Hoskins presents the strongest case for a psychopathic Iago. There is no feeling evident here at all, with no real attention to motivation, beyond enjoyment and an amusement in hatred. McInnerny’s Iago is the exclusive example of a performance for stage (Iilmed as such, before a live audience), on something resembling the original space. This Iago is ‘bigger’, housing and feeding an explosive and deranged characterisation. For me, McKellen represents central aspects of what Eagleton presents in his study of evil. The only emotion present is a seething hatred for Othello. Apart from this, he is empty - purely performative - in all his exchanges, even with us it feels. Though varying in degree and origin, I will argue there is fascination and appeal, in all these performances. Melodrama will be visited brieIly, because as well as being a historic genre Iago has existed within at one time, we Iind examples of homage in modern performance, revealing melodrama’s inIluence even today. As with all monsters of theatricality amongst a wider context of post-dramatic theatre, this could be a good time for Iago on stage. The paper will also address the recent live performance of a Dutch production in Amsterdam, as an example of modern possibilities for Iago and his charms. Chapter 10 provides an entrance into the next and most personal part of the paper, as informed by those preceding it, in the phenomenological account of my performative experience with Iago. It involves formulating a position. The riddle may come to life in analysis, but it can sing in performance, perhaps with degrees of vibrancy. How might it do so? The National Theatre production, provides a strong example of this, in its interconnections between layers of meaning, produced through clarity in answering certain pivotal questions
within the play. The riddle may sing with these layers of meaning. The paper seeks to 24 examine the possibility of Iinding a way for way for Iago to act as a representative of some greater abstraction, remain a sound theatrical construction, and be a human being, as a coherent whole. It is the hope that this particular approach to Iago considers the Iigure across disciplines and modes of engagement, which interconnect and inform one another. Could this create what we call ‘complexity’? Predictable as it may seem, I put forward the icon of Rockstar, as a way to engage with Iago. He is an artist, with great longevity, much like Shakespeare, a celebrity in this regard. “(T)here is some curiously compelling fascination in Iago, something that brings us back to him, and that results in the wide range of criticism”. Proposing he is a celebratory Iigure, 25 music also feels appropriate. Also, as Tullmann reassures us, in entertainment “Fascination is cheap, and so is sympathy”. As well as having a way into our hearts, the Rockstar label may 26 not be such a trivial one - it could prove rather accurate and revealing. The image of Branagh, in his actor’s chair and spectacles, works marvellously as yet another pin-up for this image of the Rockstar persona for Iago. Branagh was my Iirst Iago, he is also the perfect example of what a Iine, iconic Shakespearean actor, can do with this role, in the medium of Iilm. I have always been aware of Iago’s method, as a speaker. His greatest tactic is winning attention and trust, by gaining hearts - by getting people talking about themselves (he certainly makes them feel as though they are… he does all the talking). Adding charm and seduction, this can be received by both players and audience alike. I hope to show that viewing Iago as a kind of celebratory Iigure is possible here - of evil and villainy, and theatre. He is an indulgence. Intimacy is a topic that will be addressed, as inspired by my performative approach to Iago in chapter 11. In rehearsal and performance, it was easy to Iind - within each interaction of each relationship - a way to cultivate something unique, special and intimate. This penultimate chapter will demonstrate how this process involved a sense of role-play, speciIic to persons and situations. Enemies in Othello are not clear cut, Iago even warns The production was “set on a modern military base, with Adrian Lester as Othello and Rory Kinnear as Iago. Its 24 vivid depiction of hatred, jealousy and racism in an ostensibly “post-racial” setting demonstrated the provocative power this play continues to exert more than four centuries after its Iirst performance”. https://notevenpast.org/ ourstories/othello-a-stage-history/. Rosenberg, M. (1955). "In Defense Of Iago". Shakespeare Quarterly 6 (2), p.151. Rand also says; “He is in 25 criticism, and I believe in composition, a varied, if not multiple personality. That is why we keep coming back to him”. Rand, op. cit., p.161. Tullmann, op. cit., p.129. 26
Othello about Venetian company. Othello is in the embrace of the enemy the entire show, which is perhaps all the more frightening. One of the four audio-book recording’s of Othello I utilised during preparation for the role, was a BBC production with an introduction by Sir Richard Eyre. He describes the play as the most intimate of Shakespeare’s tragedies. He then reveals how the playwright locates the action at the time of the Turkish threat to the Venetian outpost in Cyprus, which provides a backdrop of the super-power rivalry between the Christian and Islamic empires in the 16th century Mediterranean. “Shakespeare suggests that the threat to Christian servility, comes not from an alien power, but from the enemy within”. 27 The ‘enemy within’ was a phrase that stayed close by, throughout the performance process. It evokes Iago’s power to conjure this enemy within his prey, making him a psychological and almost magical Iigure. He works on us. In performance, by having the audience side with Iago - by winning their affections through an attractive persona - I felt as though they would get their hands even more dirty, as witnesses to the event. I thought if the audience was as under a spell of sorts too, it may strengthen the feelings of revulsion, as Iago begins his killing spree. “You have to implicate the audience. They’ve got to squirm, not just over what happens, but because they did nothing about it. They had all the knowledge – this guy was not to be trusted – and they just sat there”. 28 Othello, BBC Radio Collection/Shakespeare, Classics 2001. 27 This is Rory Kinnear of the 2013 National Theatre production, speaking of his interpretation of the play. 28 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jul/28/rory-kinnear-antony-sher-richard-mccabe-iago-othello.The National theatre describes the same approach in their series of educational videos. Othello: Iago and Othello. National Theatre Discover. Published on Sep 25, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoCIwJn9Ic.
Chapter 1: Framing Iago
Iago as The Villain
In this study, Iago will be called many things and one title which is perhaps the most revealing, is villain, especially if the Dramatis Personae (DP) has had anything to say about it. This “super-ornate system made up of an ensemble of Iigures”, is the sum of all Iigures that appear in a play. It is the First Folio that designates Iago ‘a Villaine’, amongst this collective. 29 Rosenberg is convinced of Iago’s intentions to plunge deeper into the crime, without conscience, and it is interesting how he cites this designation in the folio, as a reference. 30 Donahue also addresses the DP, pointing out that as a reader, we Iirst meet the character as a name, ‘blank’ to be Iilled. Regardless of how we Iill the blank, Iago is a necessary evil, 31 proposing some kind of challenge to the hero and giving rise to the events of the play. He is the generator of conIlict. Phillip Kolin’s review of Edward Pechter's Othello and Interpretive Traditions (2000), describes how the author has scrupulously scoured the text, correlating performance history with the rise and fall of major critical views and cultural events. Kolin quotes Pechter on the state of critical response to Othello, which has “increasingly absorbed itself into Iago’s unillusioned and self-assured generalisations, to the point where contemporary commentary… seems designed as an instrument for Iago’s voice” . Pechter also details the stage traditions 32 that have elevated or erased various critical manifestos, advanced by the various voices, suggesting a symbiosis between the two worlds - of performance and critical reception. Furthermore, Pechter contextualises performances - especially their visual metaphors - as theatrical equivalents for various critical/cultural positions. The example of Victorian production is used, which often ended with the death speech of a lionised Othello, diminishing if not negating Iago’s brooding malevolence. The point of all this is that; “If Pechter has decanonized the play, he has also freed the script for us editors, critics, audiences, from its PIister, op. cit., p.164. 29 Rosenberg, op. cit., p.149. 30 Donahue, op. cit., p.48. 31 Pechter in Kolin, op. cit., p.592. 32unjustiIied romantic moorings and the suppressible vestige of the intervening centuries”. 33 Kolin praises Pechter and his unvarnished and honest study, in both theatrical and critical contexts. This approach somehow frees the text, and its character Iago, for investigation. It shall be seen that most critics seek to do just the same, before then positing their own view… much as I shall do here. What follows is an examination of various approaches to Iago, across centuries and disciplines, in order to better understand his dramatic appeal. Ibid. 33
Chapter 2: Theoretically
First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that Iago is not a human being. Like all dramatic characters, he is purely a matter for interpretation - in text and performance. One of Iago’s unique qualities is the scope he has in this regard, as he continues to be interpreted as many different things. On a fundamental level, perhaps this is because enough ‘empty spaces’ are left to be Iilled in. It may also reside in creating a recognisable and interesting human being, calling on the sound skills and insight of the playwright. Hazleton Spencer maintains that so far as the Elizabethan audience was concerned, “how a criminal’s mind worked was not a question necessarily to be asked”, and though this 34 may have applied to the public, it was certainly not the case for the playwright. Rand believes that Shakespeare would never have been satisIied with Iago as simply a stage Iigure, and so it seems Will too, may have been fascinated by Iago. Before considering interpretations, it is 35 important to examine the construction itself and its origins. PIister explains his use of the term ‘Iigure’; “to establish a terminological counterweight to an equally common tendency to discuss dramatic Iigures as if they were real people or characters from real life, and thus to emphasise the ontological difference between Iictional Iigures and real characters”. Though 36 true of all Iictional Iigures, the multimedialty and the physical representation of the Iigure on stage, creates the danger this distinction may be forgotten or obscured.Iago Origins
Donahue reminds us that a playwright can choose from an immense repertoire of stock characters established over the ages. “Knowing character types can greatly enhance our insights into the development of a role in the theatre as well as into human psychology”. 37 Whether or not these roles (with a previously Iixed meaning and history) are played in accordance with or against the tradition, they “give the knowledgeable reader/spectator an Hazleton in Rand, op. cit., p.158. 34 “Shakespeare’s introductory scenes are always keynotes. The one in this play indicates that he was deeply 35 interested in, perhaps fascinated by Iago”. Ibid., p.159. PIister, op. cit., p.161. 36 Donahue, op. cit., p.54. 37immediate point of reference”. Shakespeare certainly lends from the tradition of Commedia 38 dell’arte and its stock characters, his Romeo and Juliet being the most vivid example. Richard Whalen describes a reading of Othello in which, “the seven principal characters, from Othello the general to Emilia the maid, have their prototypes in characters of Commedia dell’arte. Much of the action reIlects the rough comedy of Commedia dell’arte; and Iago’s gleeful, improvised manipulation of the other characters mirrors the improvised performances of Commedia dell’arte”. 39 Such characters may be used by the playwright (and actor) - as part of a highly coded theatrical tradition - in developing character, to then challenge the literary competence of the audience and enrich their experience. The Devil of Medieval and Renaissance morality plays, 40 may have found a conduit in the villain of Elizabethan drama and tragedy. A "Vice" Iigure was 41 typically a personiIication of immoral behaviour; tempters and often agents of the Devil. It 42 would appear that Shakespeare was borrowing from this tradition also, in his Iago. Shakespeare based Othello on a short Italian novel in which a Moor is brought to destruction by the plotting of his ensign, who is jealous, because he has fallen in love with his master’s beautiful wife. He made striking changes to the story, removing the simple motivation; Iago isn't in love with Desdemona, instead, he’s in love with the power he exercises through his plotting. Later in this essay we will see how Rosenberg believed that 43 “Shakespeare was not content, in Iago, to lead his play with yet another stock Machiavel, another version of an old Morality Iigure, nor even one of the newer-fangled malcontents” in what he was creating in Iago. Emma Smith proposes that Shakespeare, in the name of radical 44 adaptation and thrilling audiences, was perhaps also drawing on comic frameworks for Ibid. 38 “Arguably, this reading also offers readers, theater directors and playgoers the promise of a new and deeper 39 appreciation of the play as a bitter satire of human folly that entertains, disorients and unsettles, denying the audience the Aristotelian catharsis of tragedy”. Many salient points are made in this statement, to be addressed in the paper. Whalen, R. (2011). Commedia dell’arte in Othello: a Satiric Comedy Ending in Tragedy. Brief Chronicles 3. https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Whalen.Othello.pdf Donahue, op. cit., p.56. 40 Cliffs Notes. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/o/othello/character-analysis/iago. 41 https://www.shmoop.com/othello/iago.html. 42 Giovanni Battista Giraldi Cinthio's tale "Un Capitano Moro" in Gli Hecatommithi (1565). BBC Radio Collection, 43 op. cit. Introduction by Sir Richard Eyre Rosenberg, op. cit., p.146. Dachslarger makes mention of this type, in the Historical chapter of the paper. 44
Othello. She travels even further back in time, identifying the witty servant Iigure of 45 Plautus’ (254 – 184 BC) - who laughs at his own cleverness on stage - as a potential distant relative. As comedy, it is plotting that makes for attractiveness in dramatic characters. Smith believes that the jealous husband, the over-managed stage intrigues and a focus on the handkerchief, also make Othello comic. Chance and Gods are not the source of the intervention here, it is human agency that generates the comic structures. Finally, she refers to Steven Greenblatt's notion of the ‘strategic opacity’ of Shakespeare; that the playwright prefers raising questions over providing answers. In presenting a repertoire of characterisation 46 techniques, PIister considers the relationship between explicit and implicit modes of characterisation, in the broader context of Renaissance England. The separation was 47 paraphrased at that time, in the rhetorical categories of ‘showing’ and ‘telling’. “The decision to favour the predominance of implicit techniques is thus tantamount to emphasising the ‘showing’ of speciIic things and encouraging the audience to think for itself, rather than the more abstract ‘telling’ that does not require much audience involvement”. Here again, the 48 presence of ambiguity is striking. Pechter even sees Othello as “problematic, contradictory, and adversarial, trapping and implicating audiences through its textual instabilities or slippages”. 49 In 2011 Toni Morrison premiered her play, Desdemona. Attachment to roles tends to make actors defensive, as perhaps I was, upon hearing about her devising a play which takes Iago out of the equation. However, after hearing Morrison speak, her play Desdemona is not at all an attack on Iago; it was more a case of Iinally giving attention to some of the other deserving characters in the story. As she points out, Othello is never alone on stage, and it is Iago who is always there, agitating and muddling. There was one requirement for Morrison in being involved in this particular project from the beginning; “I cannot write this unless you let me take Iago out. As long as he’s in there, you know…talks every minute…takes the whole Emma Smith. Oxford Lecture - Approaching Shakespeare, Smith, E, audio recording, University of Oxford, 45 October 18, 2010. https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/othello Greenblatt, S. (2004) Will in the World. How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. London: Pimlico. 46 The overriding classiIication criteria stems from the question of whether the information used to delineate the 47 character is transmitted by one of the Iigures (Iigural) or whether it can only be associated with the position of the implied author, as its expressive subject (authorial). Has the information been sent implicitly or explicitly? He then arrives at four classes of characterisation technique; explicit-Iigural, implicit-Iigural, explicit-authorial, implicit-authorial. PIister, op. cit., p.184. PIister, op. cit., p.190. 48 Kolin, op. cit., p.591. 49
conversation”. Iago’s language is the controlling force in Othello and so Morrison concerned 50 herself with the removal of the ‘white gaze’ within the play. She would likely be horriIied by the gaze of this particular essay, however…she asks; “What is the world like if he’s not there? The freedom. The open world that appears is stunning”. It makes wonderful sense to create 51 work such as Morrison’s, that allow another perspective to come forward from the tale, because in Shakespeare’s play, there is only one. Her comments here are perhaps her own way of communicating Iago’s poison. How is it that Iago comes to wield such power, as a construct, in the theatrical world that enmeshes him?
Theatre Studies: P<ister on Information and
Soliloquies
Iago, by nature of his construction, is in a unique position with regards to information and awareness. Also important here is how this information and awareness is shared with the audience. What are the bi-products of this exchange? This paper will argue it is attention, attraction and intimacy that are possible. In The Theory and Analysis of Drama, Manfred PIister identiIies the predominance of discrepancy - “a radical and unresolvable discrepancy between verbally and non-verbally transmitted pieces of information” - which he believes should be 52 seen in the context of innovatory tendencies in modern drama, as a more recent development. By breaking with conventions of dramatic textualisation, “the dramatist makes the audience aware of their very conventionality and axiomatic status”. In “Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s view, it 53 is this discrepancy between audience and Iigure awareness that contains the very essence of the dramatic”. There is a certain something, that may be added to quotidian action, in order 54 to make it special, dramatic, ‘ambiguous’ (the example here, when an audience has knowledge of poisoned cups, during a conversation between two people drinking), allowing for dramatic Toni Morrison on language, evil and 'the white gaze’. https://www.youtube.com/watch? 50 v=FAs3E1AgNeM&feature=youtu.be Ibid. 51 PIister, op. cit., p.48. 52 Ibid. Regarding a verbal Iictional narrative, information is transmitted, sent and received, in the context of both 53 internal (Iictional characters communicating on the plane of action) and external (author/playwright, reader/ spectator) communication systems. Levels of awareness are constantly Iluctuating within the internal, and the relationship between the awareness of the dramatic Iigures on one hand, and the audience on the other, is also constantly subject to change. Ibid., p.49. Ibid. 54situations and dialogue. PIister believes that this is nothing other than an overlapping of the internal and external communication systems within the play. In recent literary English criticism, Bertrand Evans coined the term ‘discrepant awareness’, studying Shakespeare’s comedies with emphasis on the “dramatist’s means and ends in the creation, maintenance and exploitation of differences in the awareness of the participants and of differences between participants’ awareness and ours as audience”. This is also the crux of the ‘dramatic’ in 55 Othello, and it is one of the characters that shares a particular degree of awareness with us, creating vital a connection. Discrepant awareness refers to two different relationships; Iirstly, differences in awareness of the dramatic Iigures (internal), and secondly, those between the Iictional Iigures and the audience (relationship between internal and external systems). There are opposing structures of discrepant awareness result in an audience knowing more than the Iigures, or the reverse. From antiquity to present day, the corpus of dramatic texts favours audience awareness, over the dramatic Iigures. PIister also tells us that “the essence of both the tragic and the comic is frequently to be found in the contrast between superior awareness of the audience and the inferior awareness of the dramatic Iigures”. Though it has been condemned 56 as ‘escapist’, the position of superior awareness - aware of the ambiguities of every situation - can be very pleasurable and a “source of the most moving emotions”. This is complemented, 57 aesthetically and cognitively, by the realisation that tragic and comic discrepancies are always possible between circumstances and the subjective interpretation of them. Also, that “a particular view of reality is always dependant on the level of information available”. It is as if 58 Iago works by this, as a modus operandi, in his control and manipulation of information. Dramatic irony “is created when the internal and external communication systems interfere with each other and overlap”. This can be verbal or non-verbal and it “happens 59 whenever the superior awareness of the audience adds an additional layer of meaning to either the verbal utterance or the non-verbal behaviour of a Iigure on stage in such a way as to Evans in PIister, op. cit., p.49. 55 Ibid., p.51. 56 Gotthold Lessing in Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., p.56. 59
contradict or undermine the meaning intended by that Iigure”. PIister believes the same 60 dramatic irony is at work in comedy, though different emotions are attached, and “it rests in the ambiguity, of which the audience alone is aware, of a verbal or non-verbal utterance made by the dramatic Iigure”. This is certainly true of the dynamic in Othello, though with an 61 essential twist, the audience is not entirely alone. Iago, in his communication with the audience, serves the function of a narrator (a mediator, as we shall see). He has even been described as the “chief narratologist” of the play, suggesting he is a little more than the average chorus. His device or convention in sharing 62 with us, is the soliloquy. PIister provides a deIinition (which criticism has terminologically separated from ‘monologue’), based on a ‘situational’ criterion; “spoken by one person that is alone or acts as though he were alone. it is a kind of talking to oneself, not intended to affect others”. Addressing the audience is a ‘dialogical tendency’ within soliloquy, where “the 63 64
speaker departs from the internal communication system and in his comments ‘aside’ ad spectatores, switches over to a mediating communicating system”. Regarding my own 65 attitudes towards Iago’s soliloquies (though potentially ambiguous), for the sake of clarity in reading, let us take for granted that in his communications with us, Iago is on some level being ‘honest’ (perhaps as honest as is possible for this character); it is him, the ‘real’ him, that he is sharing with us. I had started to view this as a connection in consciousness, between Iago and his audience. As a dramatic convention, the soliloquy goes way beyond reality in so far as it stylises a pathological extreme (talking to oneself) into a normal form of communicative behaviour. Aside from mediation, it also offers structural and formal functions; “it can form a bridge between two separate scenes, thus preventing the break in the action caused by an empty stage; as an entrance or exit soliloquy it can look forward to or summarise future developments in the plot, and in all positions it Ibid. 60 Ibid., p.57. 61 Kolin, op. cit., p.591. 62 PIister, op. cit., p.127. 63 This involves suspending the pure reIlexive quality, characteristic of soliloquies. The speaker may indulge in 64 “apostrophes to a god, an object or an imagined being”. A more pronounced dialogical tendency occurs when the speaker is split into two or more conIlicting subjects. The presentation of an interior dialogue, highlighs internal conIlict. Ibid., p.130. Ibid., p.131. 65
can be used to slow down the action and create an element of reIlective distance”. 66 The bones of Iago as the MC, controlling the action and the management of the action, begin to crystallise. A certain modiIication of the soliloquy’s position in the semiotic system of drama has more recently occurred. The modern ‘realist’ or ‘motivated’ soliloquy has a Iirm basis in the conditions of the internal communication system, as opposed to the conventional soliloquy, which forms a part of the external system. It therefore is often interpreted by the audience as a symptom - it may convey themes of disruption of communication and the isolation and alienation of the individual. Soliloquies from Elizabethan drama, PIister tells us, though remaining within monological conventions of the time, may also exhibit “the tendency to explain the solitude of the speaker and his or her utterances by invoking the speakers psychological disposition and social situation”. This may be useful, when considering a 67 modern Iago audience and how they receive his dialogic invitation. PIister also provides a functional kind of typology - based on the relationship between speech and action - to complement his formal or structural consideration: • Actional - the soliloquy constitutes in itself an act that changes the situation • Non-actional - the soliloquy is reIlective. They can be informative or commentative, and constitute an action or change the dramatic action in themselves. PIister frames these as ideal abstractions, where elements can be combined and soliloquies divided. Iago’s soliloquies may have elements of the second, but they are almost exclusively actional. Iago’s non-actional soliloquies (or moments of them) are dominantly commentative, where events and situations are interpreted subjectively from his perspective. So, here we Iind a source of connection with Iago, through a theatrical structure, 68 which seems by nature to be poisoned. PIister also considers asides, which “appears to be a convention that contravenes the circumstances of real life even more than the conventionalised soliloquy”. He reminds us that it is psychologically unrealistic, whilst 69 Ibid., p.132. 66 Ibid., p.134. 67 Ibid., p.136. 68 Ibid., p.138. 69
breaking all the laws of acoustics. This is what he calls the conventionalised aside, serving 70 much the same function as the conventionalised soliloquy. Like the soliloquy, the aside can also be imbued with dialogical elements, if it is addressed ad spectatores - breaking through the internal communication system, establishing an explicit mediating communication system, by addressing the audience. This, for PIister, accords with the afIinity between comedy and epic forms of information transmission. He also points to how common this is throughout Shakespeare’s own comedies. We are again reminded of Iago and his comic connections, and how they may be working in his fascinatory favour. Not only this, but “(t)he speakers who are keenest to make contact with the audience are generally scheming villains or servant Iigures”. An 71 important factor in the creation of a comic effect, is that the audience has an informational advantage over the victims of the intrigue. A Iigure such as Iago provides this, who at the same time “serves to build up comic distance and strengthen the atmosphere of bonhomie by encouraging the ‘complicity’ of the audience, or the phatic contact between the audience and the scheming Iigure(s)”. This provides the study with a possible solution of sorts as to why 72 the play still felt for me like a fun ride in performance, despite being a tragedy. Returning to PIister’s notion of the Iigure, it “hints at something deliberately artiIicial, produced or constructed for a particular purpose, and evokes the impression of functionality rather than individual autonomy”. The fact is, though the poison makes him appear rather 73 independent, Iago is not autonomous. Unlike real characters, dramatic Iigures have a somewhat special status, as they cannot be separated from their environment. This is because they only exist in relationship to this environment and are only constituted in the sum of their relations to it. The amount of information we have about a Iictional dramatic Iigure is Iinite (as opposed to a real person, whose information is theoretically inIinite) and as a consequence, from the outset, each individual piece of information can therefore be of fundamental signiIicance in the analysis of a dramatic Iigure. No wonder, in the ambiguous creation of Iago, we have scoured the text from time immemorial to Iind answers. We are each, in the process, attaching our own signiIicance to the pieces - the signs. An emphasis on what is articulated The perception of madness in addressing oneself in such a fashion is easily perceptible in performances of 70 Iago, as we shall see. PIister., p.139. 71 Ibid., p.140. 72 Ibid., p.161. 73
necessitates a kind of portrayal in the Iigure; “they generally appear in terms of the way they interact with others rather than as solitary individuals and they generally appear as speakers”. He quotes Friedrich Dürrenmatt; “This limitation is called forth by the art form. 74 The human being of drama is a talking person, that is his limitation, and the purpose of the action is to compel him to a particular speech”. As we shall see, Iago’s world is constructed of 75 speech and his last words may be the most revealing. The way the DP is structurally arranged and classiIied according to the qualitative correspondences and contrasts between them, is thoroughly explored by PIister. He also 76 considers the dramatic Iigure in isolation, on two levels; Iigure conception and Iigure characterisation. For Iigure conception, he presents the typology mentioned in the 77 introduction. ‘PersoniIication’ is the most abstract form (predominant in aforementioned medieval morality plays); the “set of information that deIines this character is extremely small and designed in its totality to illustrate an abstract concept with all its implications”, perhaps 78 existing in the context of an allegorical paradigm, deIined by their position within that system. ‘Type’, PIister assures us is less one-dimensional. Here the Iigure embodies a whole set of qualities, a sociological and/or psychological complex of features. These have two origins, which may overlap; either selected from contemporary characterology and social typology, or they stem from a diachronic tradition of preconditioned characters (stock Iigures). It would seem Iago is both, based on theories that he was identifying a ‘type’ of human - the disenfranchised. The intention underlying a Iigure conceived as an ‘Individual’ is to bring out features that are unique and contingent. It requires a wealth of detail that characterises the Iigure, so that individuality can be presented on as many levels as possible, going beyond psychological and ideological cliches inherent in a type. It is this that, PIister tells us, dominates the dramaturgy of naturalism. As I have suggested, Iago seems to occupy the Ibid., p.163. 74 Friedrich Dürrenmatt in Ibid. 75 He uses the historical period of Restoration Comedy (appearing within the same century as Shakespeare), as a 76 model for stereotypical arrangements of dramatic Iigures. It assists in exposing the relevant and salient features, which can also be applied to dramas of most other historical periods. Ibid., p.166. He links Iigure conception to the anthropological model that the dramatic Iigure is based on, as well as the 77 conventions involved in turning this model into Iiction (this is a purely historical category). Figure characterisation refers to the formal techniques of information transmission that are used to present the dramatic Iigure. He then offers a suprahistorical repertoire of techniques used in this category. PIister, op. cit., p.179. 78
imagination across all PIister’s Iigure conceptions, as history, construction and in interpretation. The distinction between PIister’s open and closed Iigure conception, is of particular relevance to Iago. PIister borrows from Eric Bentley, who believes, “The great characters - Hamlet, Phaedra, Faust, Don Juan - have something enigmatic about them. In this they stand in stark and solemn contrast to - for example - the people of the present-day psychological play who are fully explained”. 79 One of the crucial components of the open Iigure is his fundamentally irreducible ambiguity. “From the receivers perspective the Iigure becomes enigmatic either because relevant pieces of information - explaining the reasons for a Iigure’s actions, for example - are simply omitted, the information deIining the Iigure is perceived as incomplete, because the information contains a number of unsolvable contradictions or because these two factors (incompletion and contradiction) function together”. 80 This provides an uncanny resemblance to Iago and the ambiguity hard-wired into his character. These models PIister tells us, will be based on anthropological models and cannot simply be determined as the greatness of playwrights (as was the opinion of Eric Bentley).
Theatre Studies: Donahue on Forces, Ensemble and
Character
I made a comment earlier about Iago’s bones. In Structures of Meaning: A Semiotic Approach to the Play Text, Thomas Donahue offers an additional shot of theatre scholarship, that may assist in their calciIication. His book makes astute comments about production and the dimensions this brings to the dramatic text. His intentions are to overcome the opposition between performance and text, and so his material has great value to the current examination. Donahue qualiIies his interest in the possibility of transforming text into performance and the structures of meaning that act as a catalyst for that transformation. There are some 81 Ibid., p.180. 79 Ibid., p.181. 80 Donahue, op. cit., p.16. 81undeniable points of opposition between text and staged representation, yet an intimate relationship exists, complex as it may be. The written text has an aura of stability and permanence, the performance text is a visual and aural phenomenon lasting only for a few hours or less. “(T)he study of a dramatic text must rely on the relationship of a reader and text in a complex act of re-creation, the study of performance text must deal with the relationship of another set of variables - of spectators and live performance”. As I have stated, the nature 82 of sources and experiences in considering Iago, depend on a particular engagement with the Iigure. Donahue proposes a semiotic approach, which “deals with how meaning is produced by signs and how signs are organised into a system so that they may both generate meaning and be deciphered”; how observable phenomena are organised into a system and how they 83 communicate a message. For staged representation, the director essentially re-encodes the coded message of the playwright’s script. The continuing and complex collaborative process - involving the work of a series of interpreters - then sends another message in performance. The spectators read this message by means of the codes available to them. So, he proposes a close and detailed reading, using semiotics as a critical method, that will examine the various sign systems and codes in the text. Donahue wishes to show how the play produces its many 84 different meanings - how and why various interpretations are possible. He tries to present what he calls a ‘practical’ method of examining text, that may serve as a prelude to performance. As an actor who prepares, this ‘practical method’ resonated with my own training and the approach seems the most logical, in simply considering the signs. Donahue’s efforts are pragmatic he says, aimed at readers, spectators and theatre practitioners. Donahue deIines the action of a play - another important element of the play’s structure - as a dynamic movement of forces that is set in motion as the plot unfolds. 85 Donahue discusses Stanislavsky and the Moscow Art theatre, in identifying action, and its distinction from plot; “the action of a character or a play must be indicated by an inIinitive phrase”. This does not amount to a deIinition but it leads the performer to the particular 86 Ibid., p.17. 82 Ibid., p.20. Donahue discusses the contribution of The Prague School, which applied the work of this century’s 83 semiologists to its Iirst ‘principle of investigation’ of theatre. It states that everything placed on a stage or used during a performance constitutes a sign, and that performance itself constitutes a set of signs. Jindřich Honzl shows how the semiotic character of the stage gives theatre and its practitioners enormous freedom - the limits are only of the imagination. Ibid., p.22. Ibid., p.28. 84 Ibid., p.29. 85 Francis Fergusson in Ibid., p.30. 86
action which the author (may have) intended. The very ‘practical’ and personally accessible methodology connects with the description of my own approach to Iago, as involving ‘doing’. As Stanislavsky said of action; “it is not anything the actor is pretending to present, not something external but rather something internal, nonphysical, a spiritual activity”. With this, “It derives from an unbroken succession of independent processes; and each is in turn compounded of desires or impulses aimed at the accomplishment of some objective”. The 87 character’s objective is then derived from the text, though it is still interpretive. The super-objective is the concentration of the entire score of the role. The actor strives through his ‘through action’ to get it. It is interesting to apply this to readings and performances of Iago, as a means of discovery. My ‘super objective' was destroying. My through-action was entertaining manipulation. Collisions and conIlicts of opposing through actions constitute the dramatic action. The situation in Othello is ambiguous however, because as far as action goes, Iago appears to be assisting and not destroying. Although this assists in providing movement towards a goal, it does not answer questions that are basic to the play’s structure. So Donahue uses Etienne Souriau’s six essential functions, based on a system of opposition and attraction of the dramatic functions that form the microcosm of the play’s universe. How we read the 88 signs, deIines the performance/production. The puzzle analogy is once again revived as Donahue schematises these forces, in a series of oppositions. It shows the position of the functions and the characters who represent them. Around the principal units, the others are placed in dialectical relationships vis-à-vis the functional elements of the dramatic situation. This can be a means of entering the structure of the Iictional world, as it helps provide a clear picture of the action by identifying the basic units of the structure. Not all forces are embodied by unique representatives, they may be 89 independent, a group, or an abstraction. But, as Donahue reassures us, the schema function as a system and so, create meaning and produce messages in a manner analogous to language. 90 Ibid. 87 Donahue, op. cit., p.31. 88 A basic summary; The ‘thematic force’ is the central tendency or passion in the work, represented most 89 frequently by the protagonist. The dynamic movement of this force’s desires sets the action in motion and establishes the basic tensions within the Iictional universe (yet, is it not Iago who sets things in motion?). The energies of the thematic force are directed towards the ‘object of desire’. Hostile to the thematic force, the ‘rival’ completes the fundamental constellation of forces needed for drama to exist. These functions should be most clearly perceivable in the action of the play, generally represented by the major characters; the protagonist and antagonist and their contrasting intentions. The ‘arbiter’ can mediate the struggle and possesses the power to bestow or withhold the object of desire. The ‘aid’ can reinforce any of the other elements in the system. Ibid. Ibid., p.33. 90
Donahue identiIies the possibility of levels of schema, working throughout the text, though one or others may be the prominent underlying structure at any one time. The story has to be understood, Donahue tells us, in the context of the background that may be provided. The two main levels composing Othello are the love story and the super-power rivalry as the background. The thematic force, he tells us, “constitutes the dynamic, generative motion within the action of the play around which all the other forces congregate”. It is embodied in 91 a character and it is best to conceive of its desire as a positive force rather than a negative one. The latter would be more properly suited for the opposed. The object of desire is represented by a character rather than an abstraction, which engenders an emotional and psychological investment on the part of the reader/spectator. With the love story at the centre of the play, we have just the right playground for this type of investment, ready for Iago to trample underfoot. Of Romeo and Juliet, Donahue tells us that because Romeo has a right to love - on the human, if not the legal level - he enjoys considerable sympathy from the reader. Othello 92 also has this right, but he is also completely at the mercy of his inner enemy. He kills, rather than seeing sense and this makes it more difIicult for the audience to sympathise with the protagonist, blurring where our allegiances should lie. Donahue advises us that the schema he presents are deduced from the text, not imposed on it - it is the result of a textual study. It offers “an insightful view of the many meanings that the text can generate”. What meanings are possible when we apply Donahue’s 93 schema to Othello? With Othello as the protagonist (see Figure 1); clearly, he desires Desdemona, and both he and she can be receivers of his desire. Iago, Roderigo and Brabantio (and, in the background, the Turks) are clearly opposed. Emilia and Bianca are important aids, who innocently hasten the tragedy. Various minor male characters turn up at the end, too late to be rescuers. With Iago as the protagonist (see Figure 2); we have a kind of inverted sacriIice-type of schema, where the object of his desire is the destruction of Othello, so both Othello and Desdemona are receivers of his desire. Emilia and Bianca are still aids. Othello, Desdemona, and Cassio are opposed. The nature of the arbiter is perhaps the most interesting aspect of mapping the forces in Othello. If Othello is protagonist, then clearly the Doge is an arbiter, as he enables ofIicial recognition of the marriage and overrules Brabantio. But who are Ibid., p.35. “It is the sequential development towards a Iinal action, the movement of the thematic force 91 towards its object of desire that provides the basic, vital impulse to the drama”. Othello moves towards the destruction of his love, out of his love, thanks to Iago. Ibid., p.44 Ibid., p.38. 92 Donahue, op. cit., p.45. 93
the arbiters of the greater tragedy? In Donahue, “Eros” or “Love” can be arbiters, even though they are not characters. It could be “Jealousy” or “Imagination” in Othello (Jealousy, personiIied as “the green-eyed monster” ). Though the pro-Iago in me wishes to place him at 94 the centre of the board, perhaps it is more beneIicial to see Othello at the centre - with his desire for love and success - and Iago as a very unique form of opposition. Iago works through Othello, via the poison. Iago actually does very little (some minor orchestrations and a lot of fantastic acting), it is Othello and his enemy within, who ultimately do all the damage. Othello is indeed the protagonist who drives the action, but under the piloting of Iago. The nothingness that invades Othello, turns love into jealous rage. It could be argued that the real arbiters are Iago, and Othello himself. Speaking of character, Donahue describes how in text they come to life in our imagination and how on stage, “we immediately lend to this creation all the necessary human attributes that make us perceive it as a human being acting within a particular context”. 95 Character has a function here, in a grammatical sense, that permits it to have relationships with other functions. Donahue considers the mode of its existence, as it is essential to the creation of theatre and theatricality. As a force, characters are used in erecting the dramaturgical framework of the play. They can the be perceived as agents, and behave like human beings, or so it seems. “On stage the actor representing a character gives it a human presence and human characteristics, and the spectator, obeying the conventions of the theatre, accepts the role played as real. When force is joined to agent, the character begins to enjoy its special mode of Iictional existence”. 96 It is a complex entity that Iits into an even more complex structure; the performance. Readings (the literal kind) are a form of ‘virtual performance’, highlighting Donahue’s ‘prelude to performance’ approach. Philippe Hamon underlines the progressive nature of the creation of the Iictive person; it is a construction which takes place progressively during a reading of a Iictional adventure, “an empty form which different predicates (verbs or attributes) come to Othello, A3.S3.L171. 94 Donahue, op. cit., p.47. 95 Ibid., p.49. 96
Iill”. This links to void - how much is the emptiness actually Iilled by Iago? The blank is Iilled 97 in the development of the action, in this case, with his performances as the villain. The role of the character as force, is based on the character’s function as agent. Relationships with other agents develop during the performance, and some characters are given individualising characteristics, others are stock Iigures. Historical lineage and theatrical background may be meaningful and provide a useful point of reference for establishing these relationships (as discussed earlier). The social framework of the play is exposed, through this system of classiIication, and a character’s speciIic role may then be thrown into relief. 98 Through an inventory of attributes, we can learn about the characters and their interrelationships. Donahue attempts to show how the universe of the play and interplay of characters may be revealed, in the use of types. Cultural stereotyping may also bring meaning to the required characteristics eg. a long moustache on a particular type of character may reinforce signals of evil intent. This kind of Iixed formula is used in popular genres such as melodrama and soap opera. It also seems like the most fun material, to be played with in 99 Iago. Though stereotyping might prevent an actor probing ‘depth’, it can also be used by directors to challenge the audiences conceptions. It is from the character’s role as a speaker, that its function in the schema of forces and some of its distinguishing features can be deduced. “Through its words, we perceive the character as agent, for its discourse remains its principal form of acting within the Iictional world of the play”. As we have seen, the power of 100 Iago’s discourse as a speaker - a performer and a destroyer - is what dominates the play. Donahue cites the Iigure of Tartuffe as a way to demonstrate how regardless of playwright intentions, this particular text permits a great latitude of interpretation and reception. Very much like Othello, there is an abundance of meaningful elements and 101 “spaces” here, that permit a variety of readings. He explains; Hamon in ibid. It is a mobile dynamic element, not completely formed until the reading or performance is 97 Iinished. Ibid., p.51. Working with a similar approach to the previous schema of forces; an inventory of distinctive qualities, which 98 may be compared with other characters, to provide oppositions and similarities. Oppositions to other characters help deIine roles. Donahue, op. cit., p.52. Ibid., p.56. 99 Ibid., p.57. 100 Ibid., p.59. 101
“Moliere took the stock Iigure of the Commedia and created a new character by giving him considerable depth and individuality. Knowledge of the historical development of the role of Tartuffe broadens our understanding of the character and offers a context in which the process of building and creating character can begin. Also, the historical context establishes expectations about the development of this role, and some coherence is given to a character’s persona that would constitute - if the name had no previously established meaning - another blank to be Iilled by director, actor, and reader/spectator”. 102 Donahue continues with Tartuffe, informing us that his is a role foregrounded by the playwright and placed “at the centre of the other character’s attention - and the audience’s as well - and gives him a stylistic emphasis rarely afforded any role”. He occupies a large and 103 important space in the universe of the play, which sounds much like Kolin’s comments on Iago. Tartuffe is a unique antagonist, given certain attributes (stylistic indicators) that place 104 him and the protagonist (Orgon) in opposition for primacy in the hierarchy of the DP. So, it seems that the DP hierarchy is something that may exist independently of traditional protagonist/antagonist dichotomies. Perhaps this is both the beauty and problem with Donahue’s schema - that the pieces can be shifted. Donahue admits that considering character in relation to ensemble, still leaves great latitude to the textual reality of the character in a particular production. His proposed 105 inventory of characteristics, which then puts into relief the interrelationships of all the characters, creates a basic lexicon for understanding the play. “(D)ecisions about the qualities to be emphasised in the other roles would have an effect on the way the character of Tartuffe can or should be played”. This was certainly something I experienced Iirst hand, playing 106 Iago - that he is a creation forged in ensemble. It is why I worked very hard to foster strong relationships within all my scenes, though Iago has a charm - programmed in - which can be As will be shown later in the Actor Research chapter, this strikes a keen chord with my approach to preparing 102 for the role. Ibid., p.61. Ibid. 103 Iago occupies a privileged space, speaking more than a third of the lines in the play. Kolin p.591. PIister would 104 argue such a space constitutes a central element of the DP, as it would “inIluence the focus and thus help control the perspective”. PIister, op. cit., p.165. Donahue, op. cit., p.62. 105 Donahue, op. cit., p.64. 106
extremely effective in this way. Within the conIines of the play, director and actor are also given considerable liberty of interpretation and invention. Donahue puts things nicely, regarding reverence to the text, when he reminds us that the Ilexibility of the play text is one of its essential characteristics. He believes that Moliere must have known that a play text may be shaped in a myriad of ways and that a character, drawn in complexity and depth, allows considerable freedom of interpretation. He is a beacon of both insightful observation on 107 human character and masterful playwrighting, and the same can certainly be said of Mr. Shaxberd.
