Answer TWO of the
following:
Q1: In Alexander Leggatt’s
brief essay on the play, he writes that “The extravagance of the play’s action
takes it to the edge of grotesque comedy. For Aaron, peering through the wall
that signifies his detachment, it is a comedy” (249). How does Act 5
seem to underline Aaron’s view of the play—or life itself—as a comedy staged
for his benefit? Why might this prove that Aaron could actually be played by
the comic actor of the troupe?
Q2: How would you advise
the actors play the elaborate meeting between Titus and Revenge in Act 5, Scene
2: as a tense, thrilling drama or as farcical slapstick? Is Titus cunning to
see through the disguises of Tamora and her sons, or are the disguises really
so bad that anyone could see through them? How does the language help us
understand how to stage this extremely bizarre scene?
Q3: In one page—or more accurately,
6 lines—all the major characters are murdered by one another’s hand. It is a
chaotic minute of murder, so fast that even the characters can’t keep up with
it, saying little more than “Die, frantic wretch!” or “death for a deadly deed”
(197). Is this revenge cathartic? Is it a satisfying pay off for all the
planning and scheming going on since Act 3? Do you feel the audience would be
satisfied by this grand bloodbath...or is it strangely anticlimactic—or even
comic?
Q4: Leggatt, writing about
Lavinia’s death, notes that “The last we hear of Lavinia is Lucius’ command to
bury his father and sister in the family tomb. She is released from an
intolerable life, but she is also absorbed into the patriarchal world that was
implicated in her suffering” (246). How do the men in the play speak about the
deaths of both women in the play, allowing them to be “absorbed” in the same
manner?
Q2: While I don't think this scene is humorous, I do think that it could be turned into dark comedy if the actors intentionally overdramatize the scene. You could add to this sense of dark comedy by assuming that Tamora's disguise is terrible, but the intensity of the scene remains. I do not think that this scene should be acted out in a slapstick fashion; it would not fit with the rest of the play.
ReplyDeleteQ3: This death scene has fantastic potential, however, all that potential is wasted due to the short length. Whether this sense is climactic or anti-climactic probably depends upon the reader, however, I feel that it is safe to say that it is definitely not cathartic. Personally, I am perfectly content with this style of ending. My only issue with it is that it feels so emotionless. If you were going to write a massive death scene I think you would: (A) stretch it out a bit, or (B) create more emotional dialogue. I do admit that I may feel this way only because I am reading a script, not watching a performance. I would think it's fairly obvious that the actors would put emotion into their lines and acting, hopefully turning this scene into a climax instead of a dry murder scene.
Show us where you see the tension and drama of this scene. Does the language suggest it, or is it more the situation itself? The movie plays the scene for laughs, and makes sure we see the comic layers beneath. Though the comedy could detract from the 'serious' nature of the play, couldn't we argue that making Chiron and Demetrius into a pie does that already? As does so many elements, like Lavinia carrying his hand in her mouth, etc.? Or is that merely how we, in the 21st century, read it? Would it have played better in the 16th century?
DeleteMarilyn Kull
ReplyDeleteQ2: This scene is tricky to pick up on at first, but I feel it would play out best as a slap sick satire. Each of the characters has lines to the while group on top of lines aside. At points, Titus refers to them as "supposed me mad" (187). He also instructs then "to find another that is like to thee"(183). Titus may be old, but he is not a fool and yet Tamora is blind to his knowledge because she wishes for her plan to carry out.
Q3: I feel that this final murder sequence may be perfect in some regards. We have a very dramatic blood bath going on to begin with and after a while we get this long speech. The briefness of the scene works well as an anti climax, but it is a great opposite to the play's building drama. I feel that the audience may be let down but at the same time I think this was intentional as a means of catching the audience's attention for the final speeches.
Yes, he's not a fool, and in his sorrow and disgrace he seems to find a personality denied him in Act 1. Once he stops becoming the embodiment of Rome, he has to figure out how to be a human being again. However, do we like this new Titus any better than the old one? Is Shakespeare's point that he never learned to become a human being any more than Tamora did?
DeleteQ2: This is a difficult question for me to answer, but one I have really enjoyed turning over in my head. It is difficult because I read and interpret things very literally and serious, although, at this time in literature there was comedic parts to every play. For this reason I think that this scene should be read seriously, giving the audience an understanding of Tamora’s inability to respect Titus, or his ability to see through her disguise. This being said, I think that it could be extremely humorous, in a darker sense of course, and I even kind of want it to be humorous because I really dislike both characters, and it makes them both look ridiculous in their own ways. I think that in order to meet the needs of the audience then, the scene should be read in a slapstick manner. However, for audiences today that are removed from the Shakespearean theater, a more tense rendition of this scene may be more appropriate.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I think this scene is perfectly Shakespeare! I love that there is a long intense buildup, just to dramatically end in 6 lines. I did not think it cathartic at all and in fact I was very pleased with it. While it happened abruptly, I think that it was a nice introduction to the final speeches, getting the audience worked back up and paying attention to the message at the end. I liked that there was not a lot of time or emotion put into anyone’s death, because I honestly did not feel bad for them, and I think that may have been one of the points that was being made. I enjoyed the ending and thought it flowed nicely with the play, but also what was popular at the time, and I think audiences would have enjoyed it too, perhaps even leaving them with something to talk about later.
Yes, I think you're right--it is very Shakespearean, in the sense that you get conflicting emotions/experiences within a very short span. He did this more in his later plays, and moved away from this kind of anticlimax in his more popular, middle ones (not surprisingly, people liked them better). But your point is well taken: we can find no satisfaction here because we're not really on anyone's side (maybe Lavinia's), and there can be nothing good to come of all of this. Once Lavinia is killed, you know that balance and justice is out the window. The only thing that can happen next is mayhem. I almost wonder if Lavinia's death was a spontaneous act by Titus. He is very immediate in Act 1, but in 2-4 he becomes very uncertain, asking for help and floundering about (a bit like Hamlet). Then in Act 5 he recovers his old sense and acts hastily; coincidentally, he killed a child in Act 1, and does the same in Act 5, as if he is closing a circle. I'm not sure he always planned to kill her, but decided that it was more just and theatrical to do so. And then he realized there was only one way to end the rest of the play.
DeleteQ2: I see this scene playing out as somber at first and eventually turning comedic. I would think Tamora and her sons would play this scene as if their disguises are flawless but the disquiets should be terrible. Titus sees right though the disguises which adds to the comedy of the scene and shows how arrogant Tamora is by continuing with her plan.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I feel that the ending of the play is quite anticlimactic. The deaths would take longer and could be played up on stage but I feel that the underhanded nature of all the characters are destroyed when they just kill each other all at once. I am satisfied with who dies it is just the method of mass murder and the quick nonsensical lines that put me off and go against the rest of the play.
Yes, it would be great comedy if they assumed the disguises were better than they were, or that Titus was madder than he really acted like he was. Then he could play the joke on them, and the audience would be in on it. It's a nice way to punctuate their downfall, but it could also show Titus as being more malicious in his humor, since he never lets up...and then he bakes them into a pie! Not exactly what we expected.
DeleteElyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQ2: This scene would probably be considered comical by an audience, since "Revenge, Rape and Murder" would still so obviously be Tamora and her sons. But perhaps it could be played in such a way that TITUS, and not Tamora, was the creepy character. As Tamora comically assumes that she is deceiving a mad man, Titus is playing the master of deceit and cunning by humoring her false beliefs. Titus could probably be played all throughout this production as a disturbing depiction of extremes -- patriotism, rage, sorrow, revenge -- that could make his character the most frightening of all the characters.
Q3: I think these deaths are probably a comical and long-anticipated relief for the audience. All these characters have been causing themselves and each other grief, and the play has been building up to this moment for a long time. At the risk of sounding harsh, their deaths are as satisfyingly meaningless as their lives: They have aspired to wreak havoc on other people, but only end up having havoc wreaked upon their own miserable existences in one short moment. When they all started dying, I felt a weight lift off my chest as I realized that these horrible characters were all going away for good. Again, this sounds incredibly mean. But it may be how Shakespeare wanted his audience to feel in the end.
Elyse Marquardt
Ooo, I like that idea--Titus as the creepy, evil one--which he is, since he's the one in control in this scene. Tamora and her sons are being played, and he is sadistically toying with them, all for the audiences' sake. I think the film brings this out, making Hopkins seem downright wicked in his joy and quite dangerous, too. We enjoy it while also losing some sympathy with him. As you suggest, it would make this scene more effective and certainly more disturbing!
DeleteQ3: I think that the end of this play left me feeling somewhat confused. I thought that I would feel some kind of resolve or catharsis by the end, but even after the deaths, I thought there would be more. I kept waiting for the lines that would give me the feeling that things had ended in a profitable way, that all of the play had not been meaningless. The deaths were, as others have said, incredibly swift. Actually watching it play out in the film today was a bit more satisfactory, and much more comic, but it still felt rather empty. After reading Leggett's essay, I found the ending to be more powerful. Revenge will never leave one will a feeling of satisfaction because death cannot undo death, more pain will not cleanse the afflicted. So if the ending is symbolic of the brevity of life, and the emptiness of anger and revenge, then I think it definitely served its purpose.
ReplyDeleteQ4: Poor Lavinia. She has little to no voice through the entire play. Her character seems only to serve as a means of displaying her father's cruelty, and a catalysts to his hate for Tamora. It is fitting that she would have her hands and her tongue cut off. It almost symbolizes the fact that she had no voice or free will even before her tragic end. The men in the play seem to view both Lavinia and Tamora as pawns. They are used to gain power, or display power, and they are definitely not viewed as equals. When Titus kills Lavinia, it is the ultimate display of this patriarchal society, a society where Lavinia is expected in some to lay down her life if it means restoring her father's glory.
Yes, there is no release, no catharsis, just a sense of horror and humor--and confusion. Too much happened at once, and nothing seemed balanced by the end. Lavinia didn't need to die, Saturninus probably didn't either (he was duped just as well as the others). Even the feeding Tamora her sons seems unnecessarily gruesome and comic--especially when it was all started off by Titus' murder of her son. The hollowness of the play is probably the point: Shakespeare wanted to give the audience and over-the-top bloodbath that leaves everyone stained. It's somewhat like a Quentin Tarrantino movie, perhaps Reservoir Dogs. A lot of violence and a lot of absurdity, but no real justice or balance.
Delete2. I think you could play it as Titus scheming this grand moment but then losing it during the execution (pardon the pun) and just exploding. It ends up being rather comical. Five acts leading up to a mass murder scene that is over in about as long as it takes to remove a pie from the oven. Like, Titus would start off a little cool. All "Oh, you'll get the joke in but a moment, I /promise/" but then, like a greenhorn, he just gets too caught up in the theatrics that he forgets he's supposed to relish it. To let /anything/ sink in. It could be intense, but just one off facial expression and the whole thing is a comedy.
ReplyDelete3. I think it's a bit of an anti-climax. The characters were all too ready to hear their own voices before, but now they just want to kill off everyone else. It was bizarre and frankly quite jolting. But in a very... metaphorical way, it was better. These were nasty people with horrible plots. Carefully planned and executed, only to have everything derailed and over with, not with a bang, but with a whimper. And apparently a butter knife, candle stick, and a spoon. But to-ma-to to-mat-o, i guess.
Kenia Starry
Yes, I like the idea that he gets too caught up in the moment to let it 'play'--like a bad actor, he starts overacting and speaking all his lines at once. The effect of this scene, to me, is that of a play that crashes to a halt. And the actors start improvising by killing each other off, only to realize, "whoops, we just ended the play!" As you suggest, a single expression makes it a comedy, and a single line of dialogue can do the same.
DeleteQ2: I would advise the actors to play this scene as ridiculously comedic. I think the costumes should be entirely too obvious and Tamora should play as though she is very proud of herself. I read this scene as obvious because Titus kept pointing out that they looked like the Empress and her two sons. For example, when they asked who they should take revenge on, Titus basically said 'Just go walk around Rome, and when you two stumble on people who look exactly like you, stab them because they are rapists and murderers'. Titus also keeps asking Tamora what "Rape and Murder's" names are, like he is trying to get her to admit that they are her sons. I think it was quite cunning of Titus to play along with Tamora's little game to get the boys alone, and to take her by surprise.
ReplyDeleteQ3: On one hand, I found it extremely cathartic- because all of these awful people (minus Lavinia) were finally dead. However, it was really anticlimactic and I audibly said "what?" when I was reading it because of the pointlessness to it. Throughout the whole play, everyone is scheming and making up these elaborate plans for everyone's death's and just general mayhem, then everyone dies suddenly and without fanfare. I think perhaps it all collapsed because Aaron was the one who was guiding everyone in their big elaborate schemes. With Aaron absent, everyone just through their anger at each other with dangers.
Yes, the scene is hilarious because we know what Titus knows, and for all their scheming, Tamora and company seem too clueless to get it. They are played by Titus and their costumes, clearly, hide very little about themselves or their purpose. It's a moment of low comedy (similar to Faustus and the pope) before the big death scene (which is comic in its own way). It just shows us that a tragedy doesn't necessarily have to be serious; sometimes, you can only laugh at the absurdity of life.
DeleteQ1) In general, I think a lot of this play is exploiting the idea that to view life in such an empty manner as men like Titus feel they have to to uphold some sort of ideology, it makes you cold. However, I wouldn't say you are unfeeling. Your feelings for tragedy will just be funneled through a dark, grotesque kind of humor to help you come to terms with this low treatment of mortality, and I think Aaron embodies this idea well. In Act V, Scene III, Aaron seems to be mocking Lucius, even at the point of his death. It seems to be funny to him that he thinks death can somehow scare him into being "good," when all it does is force him to hate even more. This might be the comedy of the play - to make fun of the idea of revenge and comeuppance as if it can hasten that which is already done and create some sort of meaning for the misery that it plays off of.
ReplyDeleteQ4) The women of this play died when the patriarchy said they would. Even Lavinia, whether her death was her choice or not, was dripping in the pride of her father and was therefore executed on his terms rather than her own. Lavinia was ravished and harmed by the patriarchal idea that she is only there to add to the legacy of a man, and the words of on her death were self-serving because of this. The women in this play seem to be accessories in the world of Titus and his men. Lavinia died because of her father's shame and how it marked his legacy and his name. Where Tamora's life and death is treated with bitterness, Lavinia's is only treated with self-pity rather than love.
Shelby Pletcher
Great response: I agree that this play seems to make a mockery of the values and conventions of authority and how literature extols the important people. It definitely shows the emptiness of revenge and suggests how Titus might have avoided all the horrors in the first place--if he had just been less cold, and more flexible in the first place. A human being can do this; a statue of honor cannot. His actions seem to give birth to all the monsters and monstrosities in the play, including his own.
Delete