Modern Day Othello

In Phillip Kolin's interview of Kent Thompson, an interesting comparison was made between Othello and O. J. Simpson. Thompson talked about his first production of Othello and how it coincided with the O. J. Simpson murder trials. He said that this event attracted large amounts of people to the theatre because "they wanted to see a similar story written 400 years earlier." It is interesting to see a modern comparison to a historical story like Othello. Assuming that Simpson did indeed murder his wife and her friend, it makes you wonder if O. J. Simpson acted out in jealousy. Did he believe that there was a romantic relationship between his wife and this man? Also was there an "Iago" type figure in his life, trying to manipulate his emotions and spark jealous violence? In modern times this figure could have been the influence of drugs or alcohol. Just like Iago, these things tend to make people see things in different ways and imagine things that aren't reality. Perhaps, while under the influence, Simpson could have viewed an interaction between his wife and the other man as intimate or more than just a casual occurrence just as Othello did with Cassio and Desdemona briefly holding hands. These emotions could have lead to a similar violent end as in Othello.

This comparison raised a lot of the same racial issues that are present in Othello as well. In the case of O.J. Simpson, it was a black man being accused of murdering a white woman. This matches up exactly to the plot of Othello. This real life event seems to be evidence to the topics created by William Shakespeare 400 years ago.

"O, beware, my lord, of jealousy! It is the green eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on."

Jealousy is the main driving force of the plot in this play. Every character in this story is affected by jealousy in one way or another. In the case of Othello, Iago and Roderigo, jealousy was the motive for their actions. As for Desdemona, Emilia, and Cassio, they are either murdered or deeply affected by the jealousy driven acts. What interests me is why this one emotion trumps all others and is able to cause this much death and destruction. Why couldn't love save Othello from murdering his wife or loyalty stop Iago from betraying and manipulating his master.

Jealousy as stated in the quote above is the green-eyed monster. When I hear this metaphor, I think of a monster that is lurking in the "closet" of everyone's mind. It is always there but just not always acted upon. I think that the reason why jealousy can more easily take over one's actions is because it is much easier to believe. It is natural for people to doubt things that are good in their lives. In the case of Othello, it is much more believable to him that Desdemona was cheating on him than to believe that she was actually in love with him. When presented with what was thought to be evidence against her, Othello was all to eager to believe it because it could have possibly just enhanced his already present doubts about their relationship. The similar feelings occur with Iago. In this case there was no evidence of an affair between Othello and his wife Emilia and yet he still believed it to be true. Jealousy is the mode by which we make ourselves believe that our fears and doubts are reality. This "green-eyed monster" is ever present in our lives and as demonstrated in Othello, has the power to come out from the closet and direct our actions toward the destruction of others and ourselves.

Tragedy-Death of a Salesman

Tragic plays have been given their official definition by Aristotle with regard to the ancient Greek stories of Oedipus, Alcmeon, Orestes, Telephus and others. These tragedies consist of elements such as peripety, recognition, and pathos resulting in a sense of pity or fear for the protagonist. There is a strict pattern for these elements and as a result, not many plays can be considered tragedies. The question I would like to raise is whether there are any modern plays that could be considered tragedies? Can Aristotle’s ancient definition be applied to plays written in the 20^th century or are the times too different to be compared using the same guidelines?

Many would argue that Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman is a tragic play, but can it be classified as a tragedy in the terms of Aristotle? Arthur Miller gives his own guidelines on what makes a tragedy with regards to his Death of a Salesman. While not necessarily refuting Aristotle’s opinion, Miller does give tragedies a newer and modern twist. I think that in terms of Death of a Salesman these distinctions are unnecessary. Aristotle would have deemed this a tragedy because it has the following requirements:

Tragic flaw-Willy’s striving to be well liked

Peripety-Willy reprimands Biff for trying to Spite him and finds out that Biff only ever wanted Willy to be proud of him.

Recognition-Finds that in order to be loved by his family and to show them that he loved them and he needed to sacrifice himself for their well being

Pathos-Commits suicide

These are the main parts of the plot that are necessary for a play to be deemed a tragedy and they are all present. This shows that there still can be an Aristotelian tragedy in modern time.

Medea

The play Medea, ends in the murders of two sons by their mother, Medea, to get revenge on her husband. This result angered me because of the amount of indecisiveness that Medea had about carrying out the deed. She kept going back and forth about whether or not she could go through with it. If she had made up her mind and stayed with it the whole time it would be easier for the audience to accept it and pass it off as an act of insanity or just pure evil. The indecisiveness shows that Medea actually weighed both options and thought it through as a rational person would. After she reveals her plan to the Chorus, they reply saying, “You would not have told your plan to me unless you hoped I would dissuade you,” (69). I agree that she would not have told anyone of her plan unless she was having second thoughts and wanted to be talked out of doing it.

I think that a large part of her ultimate decision was based on the gender roles presented in the play. These roles were clearly laid out by Medea early on and they entailed concepts about how a woman’s main goal is to satisfy the men and to produce heirs for them. In the end when Medea is contemplating the murders of her sons, in a way she is contemplating whether or not she fits in with the gender roles. If she decided to spare her sons lives she would be giving into the role of the typical woman, protecting her husband’s heirs. Medea ultimately chose to carry out the deed to inflict emotional pain on her husband and deny her role as a woman.