1 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.”

Fig. A: Rockstar Branagh Iago, on a break from charming destruction. 2 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

Playing Iago 81 Legacy 81 Showmanship 83 Chapter 9 Performances: four inOthello - 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 106 re

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.1 Both will be used here, to 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.2 An awareness of Iago’s history as a space, into which all manner 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;

1 The performance occurred June 2017 and I began preparations December 2016.

2 Snodin, D. (2012). Iago. Henry Holt and Co. 5 and 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”.3 There may also be an intermingling between these modes of perception. 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”4, actors too 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”.7 As Donahue

3 Othello, Act 3. Scene 3. Line 1817. Any references to the text will be cited in the following fashion, using the online resource www.opensourceshakespeare.org; A3.S3.L1817.

4 Pechter in Kolin, P. C, “Othello and Interpretive Traditions” (review), Theatre Journal, Dec 2000, 52, 4, p.591.

5 Dachslarger, Earl L. (1976). The Villainy of Iago: “What you know, you know”. CEA Critic, Vol 38, No.3, March. p. 10.

6 Ibid., p.4.

7 Donahue, T. J. (1993). Structures Of Meaning. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p.57. 6 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.8 In Chapter 2, theatrically analytical 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.9 So, it is important to ask, what kind of theatrical construct is he? His line “I am not what I am”,10 along with all the other Iago utterances which 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”11 is rather important in this regard. It also heightens 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.12 The work of both Donahue and PIister - only available within the 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’s13 brilliance. “Force” is actually one of the Iirst notes found in my performance script for Othello, to describe Iago.14 Is it easy to view Iago as a force (as Donahue’s study does), because he is

8 See PIister, M. (2000). The Theory And Analysis Of Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. The terms ‘Iigure’ and ‘character’ will however be used fairly interchangeably here.

9 See Donahue, op. cit.

10 Othello, A1.S1.L71. Which Szondi tells us is a reversal of the Old Testament God’s description of himself. Szondi, P. (2002). An Essay On The Tragic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p.44.

11 Othello, A1.S1.L62.

12 PIister, op. cit., p.179.

13 The Iirst recorded performance was on November 1st 1604, the King’s Men playing at Whitehall for James 1. According to court records, the play was written by one ‘Shaxberd’. https://notevenpast.org/ourstories/othello- a-stage-history/

14 It was then interesting to read Donahue’s description of the dramatic forces at work within a text. Donahue, p. 47. 7 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’t16). When engaging with the 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 play17) aligns with 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”.18 It is not hard to understand pro-attitude feelings towards a representative of 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.

15 Donahue, op. cit., p.28.

16 See Rand, F. P. (1950). "The Over Garrulous Iago". Shakespeare Quarterly 1 (3). pp.154-161.

17 “jealous souls will not be answered so. They are not ever jealous for the cause, but jealous for they’re jealous. It is a monster begot upon itself, born on itself”. Othello, A2.S4.

18 Goodness: Altruism and the Literary Imagination, Morrison, T, Harvard Divinity School, published December 14, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJmVpYZnKTU&feature=youtu.be 8 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.19 Most of this literature is 20th century, 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”,20 we may feel pro-attitudes towards them. However, Schoenmakers reminds us that “(s)omebody or some situation is attractive or desirable according to the subjective ideas, norms, values and concerns of a spectator”.21 On a level, actor fascination may also include 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 -

19 The Doublet is cited by the doubtaboutwill collective, as a piece of evidence in questioning the authorship of 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

20 See Tullmann, K. (2016). "Sympathy And Fascination". The British Journal Of Aesthetics 56 (2). pp.115-129.

21 Ibid., p.143. 9 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”.23 Creating villains, especially attractive ones, might begin 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

22 Rafter, N. (2005). Badfellas: Movie psychos, popular culture, and law. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Law and Popular 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.

23 Five Minutes With: Steven Berkoff. smtm: Entertainment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzkgAAMwyIE. 10 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 11 within the play.24 The riddle may sing with these layers of meaning. The paper seeks to 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”.25 Proposing he is a celebratory Iigure, music also feels appropriate. Also, as Tullmann reassures us, in entertainment “Fascination is cheap, and so is sympathy”.26 As well as having a way into our hearts, the Rockstar label may 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

24 The production was “set on a modern military base, with Adrian Lester as Othello and Rory Kinnear as Iago. Its 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/.

25 Rosenberg, M. (1955). "In Defense Of Iago". Shakespeare Quarterly 6 (2), p.151. Rand also says; “He is in 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.

26 Tullmann, op. cit., p.129. 12 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

27 Othello, BBC Radio Collection/Shakespeare, Classics 2001.

28 This is Rory Kinnear of the 2013 National Theatre production, speaking of his interpretation of the play. 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. 13 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.29 It is the First Folio that designates Iago ‘a Villaine’, amongst this collective. 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.31 Regardless of how we Iill the blank, Iago is a necessary evil, 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”32. Pechter also details the stage traditions 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

29 PIister, op. cit., p.164.

30 Rosenberg, op. cit., p.149.

31 Donahue, op. cit., p.48.

32 Pechter in Kolin, op. cit., p.592. 14 unjustiIied 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.

33 Ibid. 15 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”,34 and though this 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.35 Before considering interpretations, it is 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”.36 Though 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

34 Hazleton in Rand, op. cit., p.158.

35 “Shakespeare’s introductory scenes are always keynotes. The one in this play indicates that he was deeply interested in, perhaps fascinated by Iago”. Ibid., p.159.

36 PIister, op. cit., p.161.

37 Donahue, op. cit., p.54. 16 immediate point of reference”.38 Shakespeare certainly lends from the tradition of Commedia 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.40 The Devil of Medieval and Renaissance morality plays, may have found a conduit in the villain of Elizabethan drama and tragedy.41 A "Vice" Iigure was typically a personiIication of immoral behaviour; tempters and often agents of the Devil.42 It 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.43 Later in this essay we will see how Rosenberg believed that “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.44 Emma Smith proposes that Shakespeare, in the name of radical adaptation and thrilling audiences, was perhaps also drawing on comic frameworks for

38 Ibid.

39 “Arguably, this reading also offers readers, theater directors and playgoers the promise of a new and deeper 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

40 Donahue, op. cit., p.56.

41 Cliffs Notes. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/o/othello/character-analysis/iago.

42 https://www.shmoop.com/othello/iago.html.

43 Giovanni Battista Giraldi Cinthio's tale "Un Capitano Moro" in Gli Hecatommithi (1565). BBC Radio Collection, op. cit. Introduction by Sir Richard Eyre

44 Rosenberg, op. cit., p.146. Dachslarger makes mention of this type, in the Historical chapter of the paper. 17 Othello.45 She travels even further back in time, identifying the witty servant Iigure of 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.46 In presenting a repertoire of characterisation techniques, PIister considers the relationship between explicit and implicit modes of characterisation, in the broader context of Renaissance England.47 The separation was 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”.48 Here again, the 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

45 Emma Smith. Oxford Lecture - Approaching Shakespeare, Smith, E, audio recording, University of Oxford, October 18, 2010. https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/othello

46 Greenblatt, S. (2004) Will in the World. How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. London: Pimlico.

47 The overriding classiIication criteria stems from the question of whether the information used to delineate the 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.

48 PIister, op. cit., p.190.

49 Kolin, op. cit., p.591. 18 conversation”.50 Iago’s language is the controlling force in Othello and so Morrison concerned 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”.51 It makes wonderful sense to create 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

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”52 - which he believes should be 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”.53 In “Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s view, it is this discrepancy between audience and Iigure awareness that contains the very essence of the dramatic”.54 There is a certain something, that may be added to quotidian action, in order 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

50 Toni Morrison on language, evil and 'the white gaze’. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=FAs3E1AgNeM&feature=youtu.be

51 Ibid.

52 PIister, op. cit., p.48.

53 Ibid. Regarding a verbal Iictional narrative, information is transmitted, sent and received, in the context of both 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.

54 Ibid. 19 situations 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”.55 This is also the crux of the ‘dramatic’ in 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”.56 Though it has been condemned 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”.57 This is complemented, 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”.58 It is as if 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”.59 This can be verbal or non-verbal and it “happens 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

55 Evans in PIister, op. cit., p.49.

56 Ibid., p.51.

57 Gotthold Lessing in Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid., p.56. 20 contradict or undermine the meaning intended by that Iigure”.60 PIister believes the same 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”.61 This is certainly true of the dynamic in Othello, though with an 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.62 His device or convention in sharing 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”.63 Addressing the audience is a ‘dialogical tendency’64 within soliloquy, where “the speaker departs from the internal communication system and in his comments ‘aside’ ad spectatores, switches over to a mediating communicating system”.65 Regarding my own 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

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid., p.57.

62 Kolin, op. cit., p.591.

63 PIister, op. cit., p.127.

64 This involves suspending the pure reIlexive quality, characteristic of soliloquies. The speaker may indulge in “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.

65 Ibid., p.131. 21 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”.67 This may be useful, when considering a 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.68 So, here we Iind a source of connection with Iago, through a theatrical structure, 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”.69 He reminds us that it is psychologically unrealistic, whilst

66 Ibid., p.132.

67 Ibid., p.134.

68 Ibid., p.136.

69 Ibid., p.138. 22 breaking all the laws of acoustics.70 This is what he calls the conventionalised aside, serving 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”.71 An 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)”.72 This provides the study with a possible solution of sorts as to why 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”.73 The fact is, though the poison makes him appear rather 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

70 The perception of madness in addressing oneself in such a fashion is easily perceptible in performances of Iago, as we shall see.

71 PIister., p.139.

72 Ibid., p.140.

73 Ibid., p.161. 23 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”.74 He quotes Friedrich Dürrenmatt; “This limitation is called forth by the art form. 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”.75 As we shall see, Iago’s world is constructed of 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.76 He also considers the dramatic Iigure in isolation, on two levels; Iigure conception and Iigure characterisation.77 For Iigure conception, he presents the typology mentioned in the 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”,78 perhaps 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

74 Ibid., p.163.

75 Friedrich Dürrenmatt in Ibid.

76 He uses the historical period of Restoration Comedy (appearing within the same century as Shakespeare), as a 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.

77 He links Iigure conception to the anthropological model that the dramatic Iigure is based on, as well as the 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.

78 PIister, op. cit., p.179. 24 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.81 There are some

79 Ibid., p.180.

80 Ibid., p.181.

81 Donahue, op. cit., p.16. 25 undeniable 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”.82 As I have stated, the nature 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”;83 how observable phenomena are organised into a system and how they 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.84 Donahue wishes to show how the play produces its many 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”.86 This does not amount to a deIinition but it leads the performer to the particular

82 Ibid., p.17.

83 Ibid., p.20. Donahue discusses the contribution of The Prague School, which applied the work of this century’s 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.

84 Ibid., p.28.

85 Ibid., p.29.

86 Francis Fergusson in Ibid., p.30. 26 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”.87 The 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.88 How we read the 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.89 Not all forces are embodied by unique representatives, they may be 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

87 Ibid.

88 Donahue, op. cit., p.31.

89 A basic summary; The ‘thematic force’ is the central tendency or passion in the work, represented most 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.

90 Ibid., p.33. 27 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”.91 It is embodied in 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.92 Othello 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”.93 What meanings are possible when we apply Donahue’s 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

91 Ibid., p.35. “It is the sequential development towards a Iinal action, the movement of the thematic force 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

92 Ibid., p.38.

93 Donahue, op. cit., p.45. 28 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”94). Though the pro-Iago in me wishes to place him at 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

94 Othello, A3.S3.L171.

95 Donahue, op. cit., p.47.

96 Ibid., p.49. 29 Iill”.97 This links to void - how much is the emptiness actually Iilled by Iago? The blank is Iilled 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.99 It also seems like the most fun material, to be played with in 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”.100As we have seen, the power of 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.101 Very much like Othello, there is an abundance of meaningful elements and “spaces” here, that permit a variety of readings. He explains;

97 Hamon in ibid. It is a mobile dynamic element, not completely formed until the reading or performance is Iinished. Ibid., p.51.

98 Working with a similar approach to the previous schema of forces; an inventory of distinctive qualities, which may be compared with other characters, to provide oppositions and similarities. Oppositions to other characters help deIine roles. Donahue, op. cit., p.52.

99 Ibid., p.56.

100 Ibid., p.57.

101 Ibid., p.59. 30 “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”.103 He occupies a large and important space in the universe of the play, which sounds much like Kolin’s comments on Iago.104 Tartuffe is a unique antagonist, given certain attributes (stylistic indicators) that place 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.105 His proposed 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”.106 This was certainly something I experienced Iirst hand, playing 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

102 As will be shown later in the Actor Research chapter, this strikes a keen chord with my approach to preparing for the role. Ibid., p.61.

103 Ibid.

104 Iago occupies a privileged space, speaking more than a third of the lines in the play. Kolin p.591. PIister would 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.

105 Donahue, op. cit., p.62.

106 Donahue, op. cit., p.64. 31 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.107 He is a beacon of both insightful observation on human character and masterful playwrighting, and the same can certainly be said of Mr. Shaxberd.

Tragedy, Meta-Theatre and the Ironist

Another theoretical standpoint from which to investigate Iago, is through the lens of tragedy. When reading Peter Szondi's An Essay on the Tragic, it is fascinating how the character begins to form in the imagination, in terms of the human level he works on (which will become more important in the next section). It also affords strong links with irony, as a part of tragedy, and irony’s links with the comic. Szondi’s comments on the The Moor of Venice (Shakespeare’s source), referring to one of the antagonistic elements that determines the tragic events; as a Moor, Othello is not allowed to marry a Venetian. “(T)he conIlict is not fought out in the Doge’s palace, but later within Othello himself”.108 Szondi, identiIies an ‘absence’ in Othello, a self-doubt (not being able to forget how he saw himself in the Venetian mirror) and it is “(u)pon this ground of shaken belief in oneself, Iago brings jealousy in bloom”.109 Jealousy, a unique passion, bears within itself the possibility of the tragic. “The essence of jealousy lies in the dialectic, which admittedly also allows it to turn into the comical. Jealousy is love that destroys by wanting to preserve”.110 Szondi also highlights how Iago acts in absolute negativity in relation to Othello. “What Iago achieves, he always achieves through its opposite. His questions are answers, his answers questions’ his ‘yes’ conceals a ‘no’, his ‘no’ a ‘yes’”.111 And so, Othello arrives at his destination by his own doing. “Iago’s irony

107 Ibid., p.67

108 Szondi, op. cit., p.70.

109 Ibid., p.71.

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid. 32 thereby heightens the tragic in Othello”.112 The handkerchief represents how the least of evidence is sufIicient for Othello’s doubts. It “takes on a pernicious power over Othello, a power that is tragic because he hands himself over to this power”.113 The proof of Desdemona’s love, then turns into the proof of her inIidelity.

Regarding irony, Szondi has yet another colourful title for our villain; “Iago is an ironist; his method is socratic…Just as Socrates Iinds his students guilty of ignorance, Iago Iinds Othello guilty of ignorance”.114 His plan is characterised by an ironic joy in Iinding and imparting opposites, in turning good into evil (see his “virtue into pitch”115 line). “The ironist’s dialectical method thereby transforms man into the opposite of himself”.116 The daily ‘devices’ that Iago has for Rodders117 are an excellent example of seeing this work in action. Rodders is commonly played for his comic idiocy, within the ‘mini-tragedy’118 of this character-line. Ironically it is the “sick fool”119 that actually sees through the lie and Iago’s workings, but is too under the spell to do anything about it. “Your Words and performance are no kin together”120 the tragicomic foil says, which is a beautiful descriptor for Iago’s action, which is a perfect example of how Iago is the ironist of this play. It is unmistakable in all the confessions and denials he makes, responding to what others sometimes openly (Rodders) or unknowingly (Emilia) accuse him of.121 As such, and as has been suggested, it may be possible to view Iago conceptually, as an instrument of irony.

If we acknowledge the place of tragedy in Iago’s creation, it is also Iitting that meta- theatre be mentioned. In Tragedy and Metatheatre, Lionel Able grapples with the place of

112 Ibid., p.72

113 Ibid.

114 Szondi, op. cit.

115 Othello, A2.S3.L269.

116 Szondi, ibid., p.73.

117 ‘Rodders' is a nickname I bestowed on the character of Roderigo during the production (also a reference to Rodney Trotter of Only Fools and Horses, who like Roderigo, was a dreamer). It is a sign of the affection Freeman Iago developed for his side-kick, despite putting a knife in his ribs at the end of the show.

118 This is a term used by Wilson Milam, to describe Rodrigo's role in the play. Othello, directed by Wilson Milam (2008. UK, The Shakespeare Globe Trust). https://globeplayer.tv/videos/othello

119 Othello, A2.S3.L33.

120 Othello, A4.S2.L183-4

121 Othello, A4.S2. 33 tragedy in a modern world and on modern stages. Martin Puchner’s introduction to the book designates a range of plays as metatheatre, all of them pieces about life seen as already theatricalized i.e. the characters are aware of their own theatricality. In the context of tragedy, we are told, modern playwrights have difIiculty in accepting ‘implacable values’, so we now have the metaplay, “a dramatic form for revealing characters whose self-consciousness creates their dramatic situations”.122 Shakespeare is cited as an example of a great dramatist who turned tragic situations into metaplays “in which the comic and the tragic are brought together under a single uniIied form”.123

Abel’s argument is that Othello is not in fact a tragedy. He believes the audience do not wish to identify with either character - so we can’t access the fear component of katharsis (to feel the ‘terror’ required of tragedy, “we would have to accept and even identify ourselves with what ever caused the victims’ suffering”124). Able believes that there must be adequate motivations, for the ‘drastic action’ of tragedy. Both ‘in order’ and ‘because’ motivations of characters are required, for the inevitability of tragic action. If one of the motivations is missing, we have difIiculty believing in or yielding to the inevitability of the dramatic act.125 Iago thinks he has a ‘because’ motivation, “But the whole matter is brought up in what seems to be an afterthought of Shakespeare’s. Iago never seriously addresses the matter”.126 Here we are introduced to the Iirst of what will be many sensational statements about Iago and his motivations.

122 Puchner in Abel, L. (2003). Tragedy and Metatheatre. New York: Holmes & Meier., p.vi.

123 Ibid.

124 Abel, op. cit., p.31. Abel also says, “We certainly don't want to identify ourselves with either Iago’s deceitfulness or Othello’s weakness of mind”. This relates to the earlier discussion about being left without a protagonist with which to sympathise. Rosenberg says, “He (Iago) does not draw our sympathy, because he is a very wicked man; but he evokes our fear, because we know wicked men do exist, and here is a shockingly real refection of how their twisted emotions work; and he evokes some other nameless kind of terror, a terror of recognition, for he is compounded of deep human motives that run through all of us”. Rosenberg, op. cit., p.157. This will also become relevant later on, when the issue of identiIication is explored.

125 Able, op. cit., p.36.

126 Ibid., p.38 34 Chapter 5: Conceptually

Interpretation may reveal our ‘approach’ to the Iigure and any reading of Iago ultimately involves doing so, as a construct - though equivalent human beings may be found to exist in the real world. Indeed, the actor seeks to endow the character with suitable qualities in this regard (it is the job in most cases). In some of the research, this distinction is not made i.e. viewing Iago as human, when he is in fact not. In both academia and performance (with realism to thank), it is clear that making Iago ‘human’, is a focus. Why then does it appear so hard to buy Iago as a human being? I do believe, being a construct of Shakespeare, that there is plenty of humanity on offer, unless it is actively dismantled in performance. Beyond what Shakespeare gives us, is it a case of the more we try to know and understand him, the more human he becomes? Or do ambiguity and mystery, also somehow make him human? Can we Iind a sense of depth here, in void? Both these positions will prove relevant to the discussion, though my interest is in the later.

Mine is a study of character; “It is through the characters in a play that we make our entrance into the world the playwright has created. They incite our curiosity, our sympathy, or our antipathy. Characters inspire us to ask probing questions about human motivations and about ourselves. Without them a play would have little human interest”.127 How exactly may Iago be made human? How can his disproportionate actions justiIied/legitimised? Is this more easily accomplished in performance? In production, does he in fact need to be justiIied as a human? Or at least, does this need occupy the actor’s focus? Are pro-attitudes for Iago a result of his humanity, or are there other possible levels of stimulation?

Donahue obliges us to recognise that "a character is not a prefabricated, integrated element encountered either in the play text or on stage; rather it is a void that must be reconstituted with each reading or portrayal - sometimes with quite different results.”128 The paper will now consider just what some of these may be, in a more conceptual sense; from the bones, we add soul, so that the skeleton may become animated, as it sings Iago’s riddle.

127 Donahue, op. cit., p.49.

128 Ibid., p.75. 35 Eagleton’s Evil Incarnate

A we have seen, Iago is a villain who is accepting of his horror and wears it for us to receive and celebrate. This, in addition to his deeds (along with the ‘why’) and constant conjurations of the Devil, may be why he has widely been considered an agent or embodiment of evil. Morrison is not interested or impressed by evil itself, rather she is confounded by how attractive it is to others. She says “I am stunned by the attention given to its every whisper, its every shout”.129 This is not to deny its existence or that it is demanding of confrontation, she merely wonders why it is so worshipped. “Is it its theatricality? Its costume? Its blood spray? The emotional satisfaction that comes with its investigation, more than with its collapse?”.130 It seems the pursuing villain gets more of our attention, than the girl in distress does; it is evil that has a blockbuster audience, while goodness is relegated to the backstage. Morrison, disturbed by our fascination with the nature of evil, uses her own work (based on her exploration of deIinitions of altruism) to address the life and death of goodness in literature.131 As an embodiment of evil, it seems that Iago is ironically on the right side of our fascination.

Having touched on some of Szondi’s ideas regarding the absence and absolute negativity within Iago, Terry Eagleton’s discussion On Evil is a Iitting place to begin with conceptions of the Iigure. Eagleton provides a lively and humorous discussion, revolving around a number of ingredients that bubble away in the evil cauldron. He is adept at Iinding truths in irony, in his analysis of how we approach the concept of evil and the processes involved. As with Szondi, Eagleton’s descriptions sometimes seem to form a character proIile of sorts, identifying traits within certain ideas of evil. It is remarkable the depth Eagleton provides in this way, on a human level, even as abstraction. Firstly, Eagleton describes how in quotidian instances, evil has no context which would make it explicable. Evil is often supposed to be without rhyme or reason. “None of this makes sense, but then that is how it is with evil. The less it makes sense, the more evil it is. Evil has no relations to anything beyond itself, such

129 “Evil has vivid speech and goodness bites its tongue”. Toni Morrison: Goodness: Altruism and the Literary Imagination, op. cit.

130 Ibid.

131 Over the last 40 years, Morrison has become more invested in making sure acts of goodness produce language. Though allowing goodness its own speech does not annihilate evil, it does allow Morrison to signify her own understanding of goodness; the acquisition of self knowledge i.e. that the protagonist learns something valuable, insightful, mature, that they did not know beforehand. Ibid. 36 as a cause”.132 In fact, the word has come to mean, “without a cause”. Being of its own cause is in fact “one of its several points of resemblance with good. Apart from evil, only God is said to be the case of himself”.133 As we shall see, this inexplicable quality to evil - any agendas in using the term aside - may be useful when considering the actor psychopath as a possible reading. Labelling culprits of the act ‘evil’ “dramatises the gravity of their crime, and also seeks to cut off tenderhearted appeals to social conditions., which makes the culprits harder to forgive. But it does so only at the cost of suggesting that this kind of malignant behaviour is here to stay”.134 Those who wish to punish others for being evil, then need to claim that these others are evil of their own free will. Eagleton cites Richard III as someone who has chosen evil as his end, with his “I am determined to prove a villain” speech.135 This essay makes makes such a claim of Iago, in that he plays the villain with evil intent. When he asks us “what’s he then that says I play the villain?”,136 he his merely conIirming his villainy, in an ironic way, perhaps highlighting that he is exceptional in this role.137 Yet, we might claim that such people, who consciously opt for evil, must already be evil to do so? Maybe, Eagleton postulates, there are moments when such people simply come out of the moral closet, rather than assuming a new identity. Is Iago just coming out of the closet, with a dramatic explosion of Hugh Jackman proportions? In Othello, evil is explored in the form of a ‘monster’, who is inhuman in his incapacity to feel. Eagleton reveals that “Monster” in some ancient thought meant a creature that was wholly independent of others. Pure autonomy it seem, is the dream of evil. “In Shakespearean drama, those who claim to depend upon themselves alone, claiming sole authorship of their own being, are almost always villains”.138

People differ on the question of evil and Eagleton believes we lack the depth that true destructiveness requires; for postmodernism, there is nothing to be redeemed. He does not believe evil to be fundamentally mysterious, though it transcends everyday social conditioning.

132 Eagleton, T. (2011). On Evil. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 3.

133 Ibid., p.4.

134 Ibid., p.5.

135 Eagleton, op. cit., p.6.

136 Othello, A2.S3.L1488.

137 Eagleton, ibid. Sounding a lot like Dachslarger’s description of Iago and villainy. Eagleton also cites Jean-Paul Sartre’s Goetz in the play Lucifer and the Lord with the character’s boasts, “I do Evil for Evil’s sake” for comparison.

138 Ibid., p.12. 37 “Evil as I see it is indeed metaphysical, in the sense that it takes up an attitude towards being such, not just towards this or that bit of it. Fundamentally, it wants to annihilate the lot of it. But this is not to suggest that it is necessarily supernatural , or that it lacks all human causality”.139

The important part of this for Iago, is the idea of Evil as a destructive force, with an attitude towards being such. His changing audience may be reIlected in the transition of the modern age from soul to psyche, theology to psychoanalysis (both, Eagleton mentions, are narratives of human desire). Eagleton credits Freud’s work as a focus of his own, particularly with regard to the ‘death drive’. “In the end, evil is indeed about death - but about the death of the evildoer as much as that of those he annihilates”.140 Looking at Iictions of evil, he describes a character which may have links with our own subject; “Like Faust, the damned are too proud to submit to limit. They will not bow the knee to the Iinite, least of all to their own creatureliness. This is why pride is the characteristic Satanic vice”.141 Eagleton considers the misery and exploitation that human freedom inevitably brings in its wake. We are self- contradictory animals, since our creative and destructive powers spring from the same source. Hegel thought that as evil Ilourishes, the more individual freedom does. Like all potent sources of invention, language and the powers of creation acquired by a creature who is equipped with it, are also deeply dangerous. There is, Eagleton believes, something potentially self-thwarting or self-undoing about humanity. He also describes the lure of the inIinite, and “since inIinity is a kind of nothingness, the desire for this nothingness is an expression of…the Freudian death drive”.142

Another sense in which freedom and destructiveness are bound up together, is “(i)n the complex web of human destinies, where so many lives are meshed intricately together, the freely chosen actions of one individual may breed damaging, entirely unforeseeable effects in the lives of countless anonymous others. They may also return in alien form to plague ourselves”.143

139 Ibid., p.16.

140 Ibid., p.18.

141 Ibid., p.26.

142 Ibid., p.32.

143 Eagleton, op. cit., p.33. 38 We are all creatures of our won deeds and the “interwovenness of our lives is the source of our solidarity. But it also lies at the root of our mutual harm”.144 Theatrically speaking, this web is something perhaps emulated in the structures of the play, as previously discussed. The web, along with the analogy of Iago as a puppet-master, is a common one in treating his manipulative abilities (see Figure 12). It highlights the inter-connectedness amongst the dramatic ensemble, which may ripple with movement, just as it does with real people in life.

In defence of Iago and his ego, Eagleton points out that we are born self-centred, as an effect of biology. Egoism is a natural condition, whereas goodness involves a set of complex practical skills we have to learn, and this may be part of what makes goodness more appealing for Morrison.145 For evil, “Iinite things are an obstacle to the inIinity of will or desire, and must so be annihilated. Creation for the evil-minded is a stain or blemish on the purity of the inIinite. The German philosopher Schelling saw evil as far more spiritual than he saw good. For him, it represents a bleak, barren hatred of material reality”.146

Abstractive as it may be, the diagnosis involved in this description keenly speaks through Iago, as something about it seems to probe his very core. Slavoj Žižek talks about the primordial immortality of evil; “something which threatens to return for ever…a spectral dimension which magically survives and continues to haunt us”.147 Eagleton concurs that there is a kind of “obscene inIinity” about it, in the refusal to accept our mortality as natural, material beings. He cites Nietzsche’s nihilist, who has “a will to nothingness, an aversion to life” and acts out “a rebellion against the most fundamental presuppositions of life”.148 Eagleton raises the theological point, that God does not damn anyone to hell; “You land yourself there by turning down his love, if such a rebuff is conceivable. It is the Iinal, terrifying consequence of human freedom”.149 In this sense the Creator is at the mercy of his creatures and “Consigning yourself to perdition is your Iinal malicious triumph over the almighty”.150 If

144 Ibid.

145 Ibid., p.36.

146 Ibid., p.47.

147 Slavoj Žižek in Ibid., p.50.

148 Nietzsche in Ibid., p.52. We will come across this Iigure a little later on, in Rafter’s description of psycho-types.

149 Ibid., p.54.

150 Ibid. 39 this is the only way to have God over a barrel, Iago certainly knows and celebrates this. This act of deIiance seems present, in much of Iago’s evocative imagery. Eagleton discusses the play Brighton Rock to illustrate how good and evil are allies as well as antagonists. Also, that if it is true, “God has special love for the sinner, then it follows that the damned must be especially dear to him. In this sense, evil is the deviant image of divine love, as plain immorality is not. If there is no saintliness around to remind you of God, there is at least a negative image of him available, known as sheer unadulterated wickedness”.151 When Eagleton tells us there is a touch of privilege about evil, its attractiveness becomes apparent. Here we have the possibility that Iago may be this ‘negative image’, which has a special place, even in God’s own heart.

Eagleton considers the nihilist on another level also, as the supreme artist; “he conjures into being a nothingness so pure that it beggars all other works of creation, with their material blemishes and imperfections. To sin in a big way is to rise above mere common or garden virtue”.152

We have witnessed such artistry in Iago’s own conjurations of nothingness, out of void. Eagleton also says there maybe something more spiritually glamorous about evil than the boringly well-behaved. As a desirable Iigure of entertainment, this may be exploited (as it appears to be with on-screen psychopaths currently). Demolition, it seems, can be as enthralling as creation. Unfortunately, Satan is in a permanent sulk however, because he can never quite get even with the Almighty. Everything depends upon there being material things in the Iirst place, in order to be able to destroy them. Eagleton quotes Sebastian Barry and his novel The Secret Scripture; “The devil’s own tragedy is he is author of nothing and architect of empty spaces”.153 There is inIinite frustration of having to acknowledge His existence, in the revolt against Him. Much the same can be said of Iago and his web - there must be a materiality for him to loath.

151 Ibid., p.55.

152 He refers here to the Iigure of Pinkie. Eagleton, op. cit., p.56.

153 Barry in Ibid., p.62. 40 The evil that Eagleton describes here feeds off already created forms, mocking and travestying them; it is parasitic on the very world it abhors. It is then “a form of transcendence, even from the point of view it is transcendence gone awry. Perhaps it is the only form of transcendence left in a postreligious world”.154 He quotes Søren Kierkegaard’s mention of “the dreadful emptiness and contentlessness of evil” in The Concept of Anxiety,155 telling us that nothing is less vulnerable or obstructive than nothing. “This is why those who are allergic to material reality are so deeply in love with vacancy. The Iinal triumph of the free spirit would be the annihilation of the whole world”. 156 It is beneIicial then, to conceive of Iago as possessing such an allergy. The curious thing too about evil is that it seems to be both clinical and chaotic. “Once reason becomes unstuck from the senses, the effect on both of them is catastrophic. Reason grows abstract and involuted, losing touch with creaturely life”.157 Life becomes a pointless matter to be manipulated, whilst at the same time, the senses run riot, since they are no longer shaped by reason from inside. In this state - the body a meaningless mass of sensations - an individual is less able to live a meaningful creaturely life and must resort to mindless sensation to prove to themselves that they still exist. “Knowing that value is phony is a source of anguish. Yet is also conIirms your own spiritual superiority. So your torment is also your delight”.158 It will soon be seen that psychopaths may work in a similar fashion, in resorting to mindless sensation. Ian McKellen, in one of the performances examined here, will also reveal this tension of torment and delight, as embodied in a live Iago.

In the section dealing with ‘obscene enjoyment’, Eagleton names Iago as a great Shakespearean example of evil that lacks all purpose; “the stated reasons seem oddly unequal to the virulence of the hatred”.159 Iago offers a suspicious surplus of motives, as though he were trying to rationalise a passion which he himself cannot quite fathom. It is tempting then to Iind the root of Iago’s hostility towards Othello in his nihilism, as a self-fashioning, self- creating creature. These Iigures “take their cue from themselves rather than from God, Nature, human kinship, or objective value. Several of Shakespeare’s notorious villains champion this

154 Ibid., p.65.

155 Søren Kierkegaard in Ibid., p.66.

156 Ibid., p.66.

157 Ibid., p.73.

158 Ibid., p.76.

159 Ibid., p.85. This sounds very much like Rand’s argument, and is essentially the main source of the motivation issue. 41 case”.160 Those who seek to be authors of themselves are, as Eagleton explains, like monsters and there is something peculiarly pointless and malevolent in Shakespeare’s mind about such creatures. Iago, like many a Shakespearean cynic, is partly a clown, revelling as he does in debunking and deIlating. “Debunkery, to be sure, can be a positive kind of foolery. It punctuates the pompous delusions of the self-deceived. But it can also sail perilously close to the nihilism of those like Iago, who can win a vicarious kind of identity for themselves only by deriding and destroying”.161

In contrast with Iago, Othello seems enraptured by the integrity of his own being, which irritates Iago beyond endurance. His speeches make the ‘streetwise’ Iago squirm. “This military hero seems to live straight out of an inIlated image of himself. Because his identity is so wholly externalised, it leaves a kind of absence or vacuum behind it, which his enemy can move in on”.162 Not only does this connect with Iago as a Iigure of irony, it also points to his destructive strategy.

Othello represents a pompous plentitude of being, concealing an inner lack. This lack, ironically, is his inability to see that there is anything lacking in his identity i.e. anything unstable or incomplete about it. Iago says “I am not what I am”,163 whereas Othello’s identity seems more or less identical with his public image as a warrior. The most revealing of Eagleton’s remarks on Iago, is that, “his own selIhood is just an empty excess over whatever mask he presents to the world at any given moment. Iago can be deIined only in negative terms, as the other of whatever he appears to be. The same goes for his comment that “I am nothing if not critical.” Like a critic, he is parasitic on creation - a creation he secretly despises. Lacking any sturdy identity himself - he is an actor, a purely performative Iigure - he lives only in the act of subverting the selIhood of others”.164

160 Eagleton, op. cit., p.85.

161 Ibid., p.87.

162 Ibid. p.88.

163 Othello, A1.S1.L59

164 Eagleton, op. cit., p.89. 42 Like Szondi, Eagleton shows how Iago levels Othello’s apparently seamless selIhood, “by insinuating an insidious nothing into the heart of the Moor’s identity”.165 This “converts the whole world into a terrifying state of ambiguity”.166 In this drama of misinformation, Iago is surely the ideal man for the job in creating this world, theatrically. “In his paranoid jealousy, the world becomes a text which can be endlessly interpreted and misinterpreted. One can read the most hideous of senses into its apparently innocuous signs”.167 And this is exactly what Iago ‘authors’ in the play. In closing, Eagleton has the following pronouncement to make; “Iago’s actual actions are purposeful enough - which is why it is not quite true to say that evil is done for its own sake. Rather, it is purposeful action taken in the name of a condition which is not in itself purposeful. Here again, one of its closest analogies would be a game”.168

A Religious Mouthpiece

Anthony Gilbert’s article Othello, the Baroque and Religious Mentalities, seeks to provide a historical religious context for Iago, which though fascinating, may perhaps be lost to a modern unknowing audience. Gilbert aims to present a viable Baroque performative interpretation of the work, inIluence of which extends “beyond the visual aesthetics of a production to subject matter and topics in the actual text itself”.169 Gilbert stresses how Shakespeare has exploited an intuitive reading of the original humanistic narrative within the source, but also adds a contemporary religious dimension to the play, lacking in the original material. This ‘Baroque addition’, Gilbert claims, provides a richer motivation for character; “the Baroque is essentially a court genre of writing, with intellectual and political topics as the centre of interest”.170 Performed in court, Gilbert suggests that as James I was especially well- informed in religious matters, the play may have been written/re-written with this royal interest in mind. In this way, Othello is an early and original attempt at Baroque European themes within English theatre. Baroque topics and themes are listed as; perception,

165 Ibid. Othello asks what is troubling Iago, and “nothing” is his reply. Ironically, the response is quite precise.

166 Ibid., p.90.

167 Ibid.

168 Ibid., p.104.

169 Gilbert, A. (2001). Othello, the Baroque, and Relies Mentalities. Really Modern Literary Studies, 7.2 (Sept). p.1.

170 Ibid. 43 representation and truth, and their subjective uncertainties. The emotional challenge of uncertainty, is a central topic.171 Again, from this perspective we are offered a whole new approach to considering Iago, and one which we can derive meaning regarding the characters motivations.

Another Baroque strategy is the emphasis and focus on the audience’s interpretation of the narrative, with dramatic irony being the primary device. The audience reIlect on the disparity between false human engagement with reality, and the actual truth. “We are driven to see the terrible absurdity of Othello’s misunderstandings, as well as their plausibility, and consequences”.172 As Othello believes Iago (like everyone else), the dramatic irony of the play establishes this as a terrible and false belief. But, we as the audience see how persuasive this subjective and false truth is. This clearly relates to our position as audience, and the access of information. Perhaps there are no absolute truths - is truth merely a manipulative notion for covert purposes, as Iago’s role suggests? According to Gilbert, the moral insight provided by the play, into the complexities of appearance and reality - that the cost of moral knowledge can be greater than life itself - would have been recognisable to an audience of courtiers. The Baroque experience also addresses “the disenchantment and anguish arising from the emergence of new religious views in the world, putting into question the old religion of Catholic Europe”.173 Othello can be viewed as a study in human relations through a ‘secularised’ religious perspective, as the discourse of all major speakers is saturated with religious ideas, that are translated in this way. Gilbert argues that the play can best be understood by reference to popular religious prejudices of this period. These would have been apparent to the audience, and would not require explicit spelling out in the text. The play is then about two contrasting modes of belief, transposed onto a popular humanist tale; prejudicial notions about papist belief and calvinist critiques of that belief system.174

These beliefs provide motivation and interiority to the central Iigures, without sacriIicing their identity as historically located individuals. In exploring these mentalities, deeper motivation is afforded the characters, transforming the sketchy Iigures of the novella into recognisable types for the Elizabethan audience. Both Othello and Iago are argued as

171 Ibid.

172 Ibid., p.2

173 Ibid.

174 Ibid. 44 being representative, in various ways, of an extreme form of sectarian belief - as secular types of a religious position. Othello is tormented by doubt and uncertainty, “the classic dilemma of the Baroque hero”.175 He undergoes a tragically false, but persuasive ‘enlightenment’, a secular analogy to the ‘enlightenment’ of the protestant critique of Catholicism. Iago presents “a world opposed to traditional Catholic values and social customs, in effect, the emergent world of Puritan resentment”.176 This presence of two distinct and opposed discourses interrogate each other; the protestant world of domestic duty and the world of the Catholic Baroque and its heroic sublime. The Baroque style is therefore used, as a structural contrast, to the much more domestic and local events of daily life. Gilbert suggests that the Baroque sublime is rendered strange and almost alienating asking; “Could this notion of making things strange be Shakespeare’s most original insight into the new dramatic role of the baroque?”.177

The Elizabethan audience will have experienced their own prejudices against Catholicism - through the eyes of Iago and Othello - recognising a sublime truth; “Evil may corrupt, but it cannot Iinally destroy all”.178 Ignorance is replaced with moral knowledge, the loss is understood, the moral consequences are accepted. Gilbert believes there is a ‘protestant Ilavour’ to Iago’s attitudes and remarks. In contemporary terms, he represents an oppositional Iigure in the play; a typical early ‘puritan’ Iigure at the turn of the century. “He believes, or affects to believe, in a subjective form of reason which he uses to advance an extreme and destructive hostility to the papist world around him”.179 Gilbert assures us that most of Shakespeare’s patrons were Catholic, to support his pro-Catholic observations on the play and the oppositional nature of Iago. Iago boasts to Rodders of his deceptive nature180 and a Puritan or Calvinist stance may also be detected in this. This strategy is said by Gilbert, to be derived from a wide cultural tendency. “The insistence on outward conformity only in Elizabeth’s religious policy meant a widening gap between inner convictions and observable behaviour”.181 Iago is pretty sure he can get away with this strategy and this relates back to the

175 Gilbert, op. cit., p.3.

176 Ibid., p.4

177 Ibid.

178 Ibid., p.5

179 Ibid., p.7

180 “when my outward action doth demonstrate the native act and Iigure of my heart in compliment extern, ’tis not long after but I will wear my heart upon my sleeve for daws to peck at”. Othello, A1.S1.L63-7

181 Gilbert, op. cit., p.8. 45 Baroque preoccupation with deception and uncertainty. In Act1 Scene3, his speech to Rodders calls on a sacred notion of praxis (or practice, the demonstration of social virtues in action - a key notion in Puritan thinking), “translated ironically into a secular context. Iago’s speech is a mock sermon, but it contains in its colloquial form certain elements that reIlect calvinist thinking”.182 This really does provide a whole new dimension to Iago and his plan. Again, it is fascinating history and may provide some insight into Iago’s dramaturgical origins, but what are the applications for modern renderings of Iago?

Furthermore, Gilbert believes Othello to be a play based almost completely around mutual misperceptions, deliberate distortions of perception, and their consequences.183 “Iago’s dealings with others are at the centre of the play, and his manipulative techniques are the main focus of the action. He is character engaged in process, without any clear position upon anything; he responds to opportunity with lightning quickness, but remains an enigma. There is a general resentment against society in his stance, and his hatred of the Moor and Cassio is only a particular symptom of it”.184

Does this also support a case of absent (in the speciIic sense) motivation? Iago’s opposition to the gallantries and polite talk (along with Roderigo's foolish obsession with Desdemona) are commonplace ideas of social resentment and rejection that characterise the puritan at work in society. He refers to Iago’s use of Ramistic logic, which distorts reality and persuades others of the truth of the speaker’s own perceptions. This was a Protestant and Puritan form of rhetorical argument where, “the speaker proceeds by indirection and dissimulation from apparently casual and disconnected points until his listener has gathered the threads of his argument together himself, and so constructed the concealed general argument in his own mind”.185

182 Ibid.

183 Ibid., p.9.

184 Gilbert, op. cit.

185 Ibid., p.10. Iago uses “inartiIicial” arguments for example, in the testimony of Cassio’s dream. 46 This was a form of rhetorical discourse lending itself to the manipulation of words, without being able to relate thought to experience or reality. In Ramistic terms, these arguments rely on the integrity of the reporter or observer. “Iago weaves a web of suspicion with no other ‘proof’ than his own false reputation for honesty in Othello’s eyes. He then engages in persuasive argument that distorts the truth, and isolates Othello from his own knowledge of Desdemona”.186 This certainly provides us with some explanation regarding Iago philosophising powers of hypnosis, which Morrison’s account also evokes. Othello is the victim of the fashionable notion of rhetoric, logic and truth that was widely admired at the time.

Gilbert, a fairly contemporary critic, suggests the need for a greater analytical dependance (than has previously been recognised) on religious mentalities of the time, as translated into secular social types within the play. He believes that in Othello we Iind an expression of religious doubt, presented in secular terms, “in vivid, realistic images that attempt to counter the reforming zeal of a bleaker and more abstract protestant world”.187 It is the conIlicting secularised religious discourses that convey and construct the character’s mentalities - the way they see the world. Gilbert believes these were used by Shakespeare to imply the social animosities and tensions arising quite naturally, when people of such contrastive outlooks come together. This is an Iago who speaks to a very speciIic audience, in ways we can perhaps no longer fully comprehend… just as the same audience would likely struggle with our own representations. It suggests a layer of theatricality that is inaccessible, though in its original context, will have provided a basis for connection and identiIication within the audience, for the Iigure.

Jealous Possession

One last exploration now of how we may view Iago conceptually poses the questions, is Othello a play about jealousy? Are both Iago and Othello poisoned by its power? Though my argument posits that Iago is the poison, in The Over Garrulous Iago, Frank Rand believes this to

186 Ibid.

187 Ibid., p.11. 47 be the case. Writing in 1950’s, he makes a very strong case, scouring the text with a more thematic approach to Iinding answers. Iago can be viewed here as a vessel for jealousy; “Whatever it was that led him (Shakespeare) to write Othello, he seems to have done it with the green-eyed monster looking over his shoulder, and the result is the world’s masterpiece in drama so far as jealousy is concerned”.188 Though we are still using the conceptual lens, this research also provides a step in the next direction of the paper, as we move towards an exploration of Iago as more of a human being. Seeing Iago as an instrument of jealousy, somehow begins to reveal more of a human Iigure… perhaps because we are dealing with emotion or ‘passions’.

Rand begins by making the distinction between Iago’s deeds and the character that is revealed in his soliloquies. He considers the former a mask, and that “It is only when he gets talking to himself that we become confused”.189 So, Iago appears to be ‘over garrulous’ (and a theatricality in this), which for Rand, is telling. I made a statement earlier about Iago’s interactions with the audience as being ‘true’ - part of a consciousness. Rand addresses this notion, by quoting professor Elmer Edgar Stoll (1874-1959), who's said of the soliloquy; “[it] must be the truth itself. Then must even the liar speak true”.190 In so far as he knows what he is up to, the audience does to. “Thus when Iago talks to himself about the next step in his trickery, we await the event with conIidence and are grateful for the tip. But when he gets to the subject of his motives, we wonder if he knows what he is talking about. And it has seemed that the best thing to do with such enigmatical passages is largely to disregard them”.191 Here is the crux of the motivation question - that there is a problem. Rand goes on to say that this is not fair to Shakespeare or Iago, nor is it necessary. Again, there is a notion of responsibility to the author and Iigure here. This particular critic is telling us “what you know, you know”,192 but in a very different way - that the information we have is in fact correct. Iago

188 Rand, op. cit., p.159.

189 Ibid., p.154

190 Stoll in Ibid.

191 Ibid.

192 Othello, A5.S2.L316. 48 explicitly states one motive and implies the other, and for Rand the two are not incompatible. His stated motive is jealousy.193

It seems Iago - temperamentally both envious and suspicious - is certainly as subject to jealousy as Othello.194 Rand reminds us too, that the play is set in Venice (Iago being Venetian) where “inIidelity Iloats freely with other garbage upon the grand Canal”.195 Rand believes the references are there for a reason (a different reason to those this paper sides with) that Shakespeare must have wanted us to think Iago is jealous or that he is making an effort to make himself think he is. Just cause is not the point, as jealousy is not dependant on an overt act, and this is a good point. For many, maybe this is the answer and the obvious and still very powerful one, when embraced for what it is, can make a strong statement. If this is so straightforward, where is the confusion Rand asks? It rests, he believes, in our uncertainty as to Iago’s sincerity with himself. It is aggravated by the presence, in soliloquy, of the other ‘implied’ motive; his knavery. He takes issue with Stoll’s pronouncement that these devilish motives are truth, but that the motives Iago’s states explicitly are ‘pretexts’. For Rand, Stoll cannot have it both ways. Rand goes on to qualify the implied motive as “sheer cussedness” (which implies chaos and anarchy, more than evil), admitting this makes for acceptable theatre. He recalls his Iirst childhood engagement with Iago; “Even my unseasoned eye could see that this sinuous and slimy creature was no ordinary snake, but rather, so it seemed, His Reptilian Majesty. It glided in from the wings with an expression of ghoulish glee. I half expected to see it fang the noble Othello in the calf. Whether the audience hissed I do not remember; they had a right to”.196

The Melodrama of this account is striking, and this genre of performance will be touched on in the chapter on actor research. Also conveyed here is the joy of it all, in the celebration of theatricality. Though it may have lacked dimension, it will have certainly been entertaining. He condemns this melodramatic practice, as insulting to the intelligence of Othello and the audience. “Good actors, like Baliol Holloway and Jose Ferrer, carefully avoid it.

193 Emilia has been too familiar with Othello (see both A1.S3 and A2.S1). Rand says, “That sounds, on the face of it, like the real thing”. Ibid. Psychopaths too seem like the real thing, as West will testify. Fearful we might miss the point, Shakespeare makes it plain that he has challenged his wife on this before (A4.S2). Ibid.

194 For example, he says of Cassio “He hath a daily beauty in his life that makes me ugly”. Othello, A5.S1.L20-1.

195 Rand, op. cit., p.156.

196 Rand, op. cit., p.156. 49 Instead they create, particularly during the early scenes, a versatile and disarming personality. Iago may be sheer cussedness, but he wears an ingratiating mask”.197 This ingratiating mask summons a potentially playful energy, in Iago’s ability to ham-up the Good-guy, in playing the Bad-guy.

Next Rand addresses soliloquy, Iirst referring us to Professor Stoll’s doubts about the validity of Iago’s truthfulness with Iago. He also throws Coleridge (“who gave to Iago’s soliloquies the oft-quoted designation: “the motive-hunting of a motiveless malignity””198) into the equation, in order to demonstrate how Iago may be looking for reasons for his cussedness, that do not exist. The next witness, Professor Thomas M. Parrot, says it is true “that the motives rehearsed by Iago in his soliloquies are insufIicient to account for his actions; but it is equally true that they were never meant to do so”.199 For Rand these accounts have the effect of revealing the possibility of yet another mask, beneath the Iirst, which makes Iago’s talking to himself all the more confusing. If the play is to rise above a parable, it requires humanity says Rand. “Scholars who subscribe to the concept of “motiveless malignity” have been hard put to establish Iago as a human being at all”.200 One example of interest that he cites is Granville-Barker (taking his cue from Hazlitt and Swinburne), who says that “he was an incorrigible actor, eventually intoxicated by his own success”.201 The man behind the constantly changing mask, adds Granville-Barker, was a “passionless creature”, whom Shakespeare, to insure “an inward verity”, endowed with one trait (a curious one for a passionless creature), namely, an “unreasoning and motiveless” hate. Though Rand believes such a judgement to be an unnecessary compromise resulting more in contrivance than character, I believe Granville-Barker’s diagnosis alludes to the possibility of a theatrical Iigure, which may still allow for ‘humanity’ (despite being an inhuman species of human) required of a believable character, in the psychopath.

197 Ibid., p.157. This is about as ‘performance’ as the academic approach gets, in the literature of the paper. However, who are these actors and how do they create this personality?

198 Ibid.

199 Parrot in Ibid.

200 Ibid.

201 Ibid. 50 Rand stresses that it is both reasonable and desirable to think of Iago as jealous. He believes in the possibility that the master monster of tradition may have a conscience. Watching McKinnerny’s Iago seems to conIirm Rand’s reading. “That Iago in talking to himself refers to himself as a double-dealer does not prove that he is not jealous of Othello, any more than his doing so in his conversation with Rodrigo proves that he is not jealous of Cassio. After all the wicked man may be jealous, and usually are”.202

Rand Iinds it difIicult to believe in Iago having always been a masked malignity, which points to a common desire in the critic to Iind the human, in the construction. Do we even need to imagine the Iigure outside of the play? Shakespeare, fortunately for theatricality, makes it difIicult for us to do so. Rand believes if anything, Iago was born with a predisposition, in which an immediate outbreak could be caused by jealousy. He hails all Shakespeare’s later ‘serious plays’ as studies in motivation, which is synonymous with obsession; “men and women losing their proper perspective and thus, happily for us, precipitating a play”.203 The obsession that occurs most persistently and variously apparent in these plays, is jealousy. He also discusses how Shakespeare, in plays in which theme is important, would always point up his central consideration by means of a related supporting one. Does the jealousy of the Moor have a counterpart in Iago - both being subject to the corrosive power of the same passion? Jealousy makes Othello denigrate into a beast, and Iago into a Iiend. The opening scene also introduces Iago’s grievance, the consequence of which he despises Cassio and hates the General. According to Rand, if Iago’s ill will regarding the promotion then takes the form of spite, it need not surprise us. He is not therefore “motiveless malignity” and the presence of uncertainty within his own suspicions, may make the jealousy even worse.

In seemingly frustrated tones, Rand asks; “Why scholars, generally, have been so reluctant to accept jealousy as the key to the heart of Iago’s mystery, I do not know. Perhaps they have thought that would make interpretation too easy, not worthy of their subtlety”. Bringing things back to the audience, Rand includes John W. Draper’s argument that even if Iago were not actually jealous, Elizabethan codes of honour would compel him to act, as if for surety. “Certainly, to a considerable degree, Iago’s characterisation depends not upon the

202 Rand, op. cit., p.158.

203 Ibid., p.159. 51 author, nor even upon the actor, but upon the audience".204 Rand believes that if we grant Iago’s jealousy as being the real thing, a partial or plausible defence in contemporary performance is possible. Yet, he wishes to remind us that to Iind Iago’s humanity, does not let him off the hook as a villain. Also, “It must not be thought that the formula of jealousy will solve the riddles of Iago’s characterisation”;205 though Rockstar Iago could certainly be the jealous type, we must remember he remains unsolvable. Turning now to the developments in historical readings of Iago, we shall see that this is just one of many costume changes he has undergone.

Historically

A question in preface to the next discussion; when considering Iago as human, is this something easier to receive when it is beheld on stage, or within our imaginations? What is to be taken from sources that engage with Othello as literature and/or as performance? In bringing Ilesh to our “monstrous birth”, so that we may consider Iago on a more human note, a quote from Andy Serkis, (a cinematic icon who often brings life to creatures of this world, and others) seems to equate with how we left the last section: “He’s not the Devil. He's you or me feeling jealous and not being able to control our feelings.”206 Though, as it can be with evil, it is tempting to brand Iago an unfathomable monster, it also in his humanity that we Iind appeal. Terry Eagleton uses the example of terrorists to point out that this is exactly what makes what they do so appealing; “If they really were inhuman, we might not be in the least surprised by their behaviour”.207 If and when we begin to consider Iago as a human, motivation becomes the primary issue. In the tradition of Shakespeare being a revolutionary ahead of his time, Szondi says the following to say of the playwright and his Iago; “What I see in all this is an indication of Shakespeare’s profound grasp of motivation, since he may well have penetrated

204 Ibid., p.160.

205 Ibid., p.161.

206 Serkis played Iago in 2002, at the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester. “There are a million theories to Iago's motivations, but I believed that Iago was once a good soldier, a great man's man to have around, a bit of a laugh, who feels betrayed, gets jealous of his friend, wants to mess it up for him, enjoys causing him pain, makes a choice to channel all his creative energy into the destruction of this human being, and becomes completely addicted to the power he wields over him. I didn't want to play him as initially malevolent.” Serkis, A. (2003). Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic. Houghton, MifIin Company

207 Eagleton, op. cit., p.9. 52 to the formal side of motivation before it had ever been set forth by anyone”.208 For some additional perspective, Dachslarger plugs Bernard Spivak’s observation that “Iago has been rationalised to the last inch of his human similitude. But the hard and literal enigma of Othello’s fatal ancient remains intractable”.209

Theories of the Human Kind

Writing around the same time as Rand, Marvin Rosenberg In Defence of Iago demonstrates how different approaches and abstractions of Iago may be deIined by temporal and spatial sensibilities - which he addresses as movements or collectives (in a string of systematic rebuttals) - have informed readings of the character. He is a useful source in this regard, providing a succinct overview of these historical positions. Iago’s humanity and his symbolism, are actually considered by Rosenberg to be the main components inIluencing his reception. Reception here, is primarily an academic one, though he demonstrates some awareness of performance as a kind of test for human possibility. Ultimately, he also provides his own reading of the Iigure.

Rosenberg begins by defending Iago against two charges; that he is a decent man and that he is a creature of subhuman evil. The Iirst charge, he tells us, dates back to the 18th century. This picture of a man doing wrong in spite of himself, seems to side with the motivations provided by Iago himself regarding Cassio’s promotion and his own cuckolding. One apologist even wrote that he is “an honest, charming soldier, a man of honesty and innate kindness”,210 such is the power of Iago’s textual performance. Perhaps he can almost serve as an example of an Aristotelian hero,211 or a “pitiful plaything of circumstance”.212 As we know, Iago has been regarded as an embodiment of Satan himself, a “black angel… the Spirit of Evil… with no passions and no habitation”.213 Here, a lack of emotion is associated with evil, and the same has been said regarding the absence of a justiIiable motive; “a monster, whose

208 Szondi, op. cit., p.38.

209 Bernard Spivak in Dachslarger, op. cit., p.9.

210 Tucker Brooke in Rosenberg, op. cit., p.145.

211 A good man, brought to commit enormities unforeseen. J.W. Draper in Ibid.

212 Allardyce Nicoll in ibid. Rosenberg aligns this position with the ‘malignancy without motive’ argument.

213 John Jay Chapman in ibid. 53 wickedness should lie far deeper than anything that could be explained by a motive”.214 This, Rosenburg tells us, is a symbolist reading of Iago’s serpent/devil references, which make his implicit diabolism, explicit.215 A more Freudian view Iinds Iago to be an abstraction of the base side of Othello, “the human soul as it strives to be, and Iago is that which corrodes and subverts it from within”.216 Another Freudian perspective sees Iago as all this and homosexual too.217 For the allegorists, Wilson Knight being one, Iago represents “unlimited, formless villainy…the spirit of denial..undeIined, devisualized, inhuman”.218 Rosenberg believes all these impressionists - reading Iago as a symbol - fail to do justice to Iago’s Ilesh and blood qualities and he is a better dramatic character than that. Rosenberg proposes that Iago was, “wonderfully shaped by Shakespeare into a Iirst-rate dramatic character, as well as a clearly recognisable type of human being, with passions and frustrations - and even physical symptoms - characteristic of a type of trouble humanity common enough so that psychologists in own time regularly encounter it”.219 Though I am not in agreement about the ‘passions’, the comment is revealing in how it addresses Iago as both a construct and a human. With a great playwright’s searching insight, Rosenberg believes Shakespeare “was probing into the roots of human wickedness to Iind - and show in the theatre - how it was that a man really could some and smile and smile and be a villain”.220

Continuing on in time, Rosenberg describes what became a jealous Iago, in readings of the century following; “The unsuspected inIidelity was a fact”.221 Again, we Iind the roots of Iago’s humanity in his motivation. Rosenberg describes how the 20th century reIined the wronged Iago into a “relatively decent man, his character Ilaws not emergent, until he was passed over for promotion and his suspicion of the adultery was aroused”.222 For extreme

214 Lytton Strachey in Ibid. Psychopath Dexter continuously refers to himself as a monster and a devil, the same variety that E.E. Stoll assigned Iago; “a devil in the Ilesh…a Iiend”. E.E. Stoll in Rosenberg, ibid.

215 Ibid.

216 Reverberating with Eagleton and Szondi. J.L.Stewart in ibid., p.146.

217 A.B. Feldman in Ibid. Interesting that it was in the 1950’s that this was mentioned, when the reading Iirst apparently became a speculation.

218 G.W. Knight in ibid.

219 Ibid.

220 Ibid.

221 Ibid., p.147.

222 Ibid. 54 apologists an almost loveable Iago emerges. Tucker Brooke imagines a warmth, sympathetic Falstaff kind of character, attractive to the Elizabethan audience, who “through no real fault of his own, goes wrong”.223 J.W. Draper also believes Iago may have been attractive to the audience of this time, as a central Iigure in a ‘thesis play’ on the military code of martial honour. For many of Shakespeare’s spectators, he would arouse more interest and sympathy than in Othello, “because they could identify with him as one of their class”.224 Rosenberg is critical (and in being so, refutes the arguments supporting Iago’s dual motivation) of the apologists, in their argument that if Iago is wronged he must also arouse some sympathy. This cannot be answered, he tells us, by hunting the text for bits and scraps of lines from which to deduce the nature of the characters. “The lines give us only one of the characters dimensions. For depth, to get an adequate test of a character’s implications in the round, we must examine the possibilities of the play as it comes to performance in the theatre”.225

Rosenberg believes, that this interpretation - involving inIidelity - is something unable to be communicated or integrated in performance, as it is not in the text. The same is said to be true of his other grievance, of being unfairly treated; “If he was, there must be more than his word to show it”…but there is not.226 Neither does Rosenberg believe that Iago suddenly ‘turns’, as being feasible on the stage, citing his cruelty to Rodders as clearly habitual and his marriage to Emilia an unhappy one. He also shuts down the possibility of Iago as possessing a conscience - that he may feel some hesitation or recoil from his villainy. Next he rejects the Satanists, asking, “why does he seek, in his soliloquies, human motives for evil? Why does he not sail straight ahead, passionless. doing his worst? The only answer, if there is one, is that he is making up his humanity, hunting about for motives”.227 Something about this, also connects with a psychopathic reading for Iago. Rosenberg is not satisIied with this though, nor does he think it appropriate for theatre, although he is considering a very literal translation of Iago-as-Devil here. He describes a childhood experience of witnessing Othello on stage, with Iago as an “ugly, twisted, gnomelike creature,

223 Ibid., p.148.

224 That identiIication is made possible, is also discussed here. Ibid.

225 Rosenberg, ibid.

226 Ibid.

227 Ibid., p.150. 55 clinging like a dirty shadow to Othello”,228 which though visually interesting, lacked humanity. Regarding ‘better’ performances, “the closer the actor came to a projection of Iago as a thwarted human being, the more powerful was the total impression of tragic life being played out”.229 I disagree with the Iirst part, but I relate to the second - in terms of seeking a tragic destination. To highlight the tension between critique and performance (again, framed in a way that suggests a need to do justice to Shakespeare’s play Othello on stage), he quotes the case of Wilson Knight, a symbolic interpreter who initially believed Iago wholly negative. After producing and performing in a production, his attitudes apparently changed. Knight later believed the symbolic effects (hell and devils) are in the poetry, “but the moment any of this is allowed to interfere with the expressly domestic and human qualities of the drama, you get disaster”.230 There is a need it seems, to ground things in the human. Shakespeare was not apparently creating personiIications, but people, “communicated with such reality within the limits of the art form that their troubled emotions would deeply involve watching audiences”.231 Rosenberg sees Iago as a “wonderfully contrived projection” of deep human emotional drives, deformed in personality, under the pressures of life.

To examine this suggestion, he wishes to appraise Iago afresh, forgetting all our previous attitudes and expectations - thus freeing Iago. Shakespeare needed a wicked man, a betrayer, a villain, as his borrowed story called for one. “What we know about Shakespeare’s Iago appears in two aspects: his external appearances, as he reacts with others, and his inner life, as revealed by the soliloquies”.232 Though an Iago without soliloquies would be a passionless one, the dramatic picture would still be complete. Rosenberg believes soliloquies are not necessary to the dramatic action and that suspense and tightness of plot would actually be increased without them. Yet, they are included, suggesting traces of the more conventional villain. “He was too good a craftsman, too adept at getting the most out of his human and dramatic materials, so much more than his contemporaries”.233 At one of the peaks of his art, Shakespeare deals with the wicked side of humanity (in which he had considerable interest), deliberately using the soliloquies to show what occurs

228 Which sounds rather marvellous! Ibid.

229 Ibid.

230 Ibid., p.151.

231 Ibid.

232 Ibid.

233 Rosenberg, op. cit., p.152. 56 beneath the surface of such a man. It is interesting to apply these thoughts, to the PIister’s analysis of soliloquies and their ‘conventional’ use within a tradition of theatricality. Also, how they can be used to probe below the surface, in addition to the more functional capacities. Rosenberg wishes to address Iago’s ‘inner life’, claiming that when the mask comes off, his passions boil up; “this inner Iago is one great fury of passion, the more furious because so much of his passion is smothered when he is with people”.234 In the existence of all these others, he Iinds some threat to his own ego. The contempt he shows is Iierce and tireless, behind it a searing contempt for his own self. He then defends himself from awareness of this, transferring hostility into furious fantasies of his great power. “What we are shown in the inner Iago is a bottomless, combusting passion that feeds on all life around it”.235 Some of this aligns with the reading of this essay, but more important is to note how Rosenberg Iinds connection between Iago’s theatrical form and his motivations as a human.

Iago is diagnosed as a type (using Karen Horney’s description), common and identiIiable in society, as ‘neurotic’. The need for vindication, revenge and triumph, determines the course of Iago’s life. Driving himself from victory to victory, he lives for a day of reckoning. This form of drive, ensures he “becomes a Monster, more and more swallowing all feelings”.236 Having shaped the mental and emotional qualities of this vindictive man, Shakespeare also apparently adds a distinctive physical illness or disorder, belonging to the Iigure. It is one that is common in medical studies of today, in individuals who burn with resentment and hostility they try to suppress, feeding on internalised rage. The “poisonous mineral”237 that gnaws his innards is thus a symptom of the ulcer-inducing, psychosomatic stress he is experiencing.238 McKellen’s Iago seems to suffer from such symptoms, just as McInnerny seems to suffer from neuroses, though the causes and symptoms vary slightly between these readings. It appears this reading stands up to Rosenberg’s test for what is communicable in the theatre, as far as Iago’s motivation is concerned. Crediting Shakespeare with great Ilexibility in the art in which he worked, “Actors of many sizes, shapes, temperaments, and cultural backgrounds have shown and will show,

234 Ibid., p.153.

235 Ibid.

236 Horney in ibid., p.154.

237 Othello, A2.S1.L222

238 Rosenberg, op. cit., p.155. 57 Iago’s with different surfaces”. 239 But the character is most powerful for Rosenberg when its nucleus is the conception of humanity he outlines here. “The two sharply contrasting, yet complimentary sides of Iago give a suspenseful unity to the role on stage”.240 There is a constant tension surrounding his outward seeming, emerging from his cynical hypocrisy and his holding down of emotion, making him an explosive danger. It is when Iago is alone, the resentment wells up, and he rages down the stage, fantasying revenge and triumph. The sudden contrast is Iirst rate theatre, and it adds the necessary deep shadows to the characterisation of the surface man. For Rosenberg, each soliloquy is a chance to look into the volcano, sharpening “the audience sense of the controlled hostility that must be so carefully hidden at other times, and makes more dramatic the moment when the hostility shows”.241 Better, Iago’s engagement with this tension, smouldering in scenes with others (masking this with biting humour) but letting the passion blaze in the soliloquies. There are no made up emotions, and they shake Iago Iiercely; “as he moves through his stormy theatre life it is clear, from the fair treatment he is seen to get from others, that the source of his torment is not outside him”.242

Rosenberg believes the apologists seek outside provocation for Iago’s wickedness, as for them, only this could justify his humanity. He also believes that “The devil has for a long, long time, either as a Iigure of reality or as a symbol, taken the blame for human wickedness”,243 along with the impulse to unload human evil on spiritual and allegorical scapegoats. Shakespeare however, Iinding responsibility in men themselves, reveals his greatness as a dramatist by recognising and revealing the purely mortal forces moving people to action, or inaction. Rosenberg reads Iago as the neurotic type, hopelessly unsatisIied with reality and driven to change the form of reality to Iit his vision of omnipotence - making for tragedy. He believes “it is this kind of human being, with his uncanny attraction for endless audiences and readers, that Shakespeare with surpassing technical skill and insight reIlected in Iago”244 and that his is an Iago, successfully able to be translated on the stage.

239 Ibid., p.156

240 Ibid.

241 Rosenberg, op. cit., p.157.

242 Ibid.

243 Ibid., p.158

244 Ibid. 58 Anti-theory

Then comes Earl. L. Dachslarger, who like Iago (and true to the 70’s), is a disruptor who favours ambiguity. In The Villainy of Iago: “What you know, you know”, he perhaps manages to free Iago more than any of the others within the current research. It could almost be seen as a get-out-of-jail card in negotiating the game, when he asks “why bother with explanations at all”? Dachslarger refers to “readers and critics” in his description of the receiver, so his account does not particularly consider performance or the actor. However, there is a sense of theatricality in how he describes Iago as playing a role, stemming from a need to fawn his way through the play. It is his deception of others that makes him credible, as a villain and as a human.

Dachslager opens his paper on Iago, by reminding us of an important fact concerning motivation, that by his “own refusal to answer the question, or more accurately, Shakespeare’s refusal to give him an answer, the question has remained open”.245 Attempts to address the matter apparently contain a misguided assumption that these explanations are necessary at all, because neither Iago or Shakespeare knew (or if he does, he’s not telling), and so it is up to us “teachers, critics, or both” to tell.246 The not-telling serves Shakespeare’s dramatic purpose, as this is essential to the role - this is Iago’s part in the drama. Dachslarger then dismisses certain popular theories on Iago as ultimately useless, or at least Iinally unresolvable, though not denying their truth or accuracy; “they turn out to be merely labels, categories, other words for saying the same thing; and Iinally, they do not explain him at all”.247 What they do explain is how unique Shakespeare was among his Elizabethan competition, in creating a dramatic character. One step further, it is this that makes Iago another very “real” human being that Shakespeare has created. So it is ambiguity, and not a clear explanation, that makes Iago human… his mystery.

Dachslarger does in fact assign Iago a psychological proIile of sorts, acknowledging similar types in the work of Shakespeare’s contemporaries. The induction to Marston’s The Malcontent, alludes to the play’s villain Mendozo; “there are a sort of discontented creatures that bear a stingless envy to great ones, and these will wrest the doings of any man to their

245 Dachslarger, op. cit., p.4.

246 Ibid.

247 Ibid., p.5. 59 base, malicious applyment”.248 In both characters, Dachslarger believes we Iind “a discontented and envious creature, a dissembler, a fawner; one who feigns friendship for his own self-interests”.249 Iago is however unique and supreme amongst such counterparts, in Shakespeare’s refusal to give Iago any deIined public motivations for his villainy. His actions are not publicly motivated (he is the least politically interested villains of the canon), but are more private and personal, interior and hidden. All he stands to gain, is his own personal gratiIication - whatever that may be - with the destruction of the Moor. This certainly connects with the paper’s focus on the domestic and personal nature of this tale. Because his motives are more personal and hidden, the external expressions of his character appear less indicative of the reality of his evil nature. This inner and outer world, is then performative by nature, in the discrepancy. Returning to Mendozo, both he and Iago rail against women, each projecting their own role, on the role of the woman. Yet it is Iago’s speech “Come on, come on” that is more jocular and playful, making him appear “less deadly and less serious; which, paradoxically, makes him ultimately all the more so”.250 Both characters Iind the prospect of service revolting, and refuse to play inferior roles. Yet the reasons for Mendozo’s villainous behaviour are more speciIic, concrete and publicly deIined than Iago’s. They are also more precise and spelled out. “Nowhere in Shakespeare’s play does Iago give such clearly deIined, and, as it turns out, valid reasons for what he does”.251 Dachslarger here, completely rules out the motivations given by Iago. All other ‘serious’ Elizabethan villains have, for the most part, public reasons for their villainy, which are deIinite and precise. Iago refuses to wear his heart on his sleeve.

Another earlier model of Shakespearean villain that Dachslarger uses for comparison, is Aaron the Moor of Titus Andronicus. His failure as a ‘credible’ villain, according to Dachslarger, lies in the fact that he is the true Machiavellian, whereas Iago is not. “Aaron grandstands his villainy, and in doing so, the effect is to take him at face value rather than intrinsic value. And thus he becomes a ‘Ilat’ character, lacking the essential mystery and complexity necessary to credible characterisation”.252

248 Dachslarger, op. cit., p.5.

249 Ibid., p.6.

250 Ibid.

251 Ibid., p.7.

252 Ibid., p.8. 60 In Titus Andronicus, everything is made public and explained on stage, whereas in Othello, little or nothing is - certainly as far as Iago is concerned. Dashslarger agrees with Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s (1772-1834) infamous “motive hunting of a motiveless malignity” pronouncement, but only insofar as he gives no public, open reason for his actions. “Hence the way has been left open for seeking non-public, private and psychic, motives to explain why he destroys Othello and the others”.253 This explains the mass of attention Iago continues to receive on clinical, historical and formal levels. Though Iago maintains many superIicial qualities of all vicious characters (cynicism, fearlessness, envy, contempt of idealistic or spiritual values, an almost total concern with the self i.e the villainous tradition) but in breaking the mould, he is able to remain present through time. Dachslarger also supports Spivak’s belief that the more Iago explains his actions, the less we understand. Yet, he argues that “Iago’s equivocation and dissimulation serve not to mystify the reader, or viewer, but to create the impression that his motives are personal rather than public, intrinsic rather than extrinsic”.254

Highlighting Iago’s appeal for an audience and the celebratory nature of his role, Dachslarger says; “To me, it seems quite clear what he is doing and why - he is playing the villain and playing it wholly, steadily and gleefully. And the reason why we can, if we choose, make him a mystery, turn him into a puzzle, is because Shakespeare refuses to have Iago, or anyone else in the play, explain why he is doing what he does”.255

Iago is evil as we imagine it to be, and not what he tells it to be. So Shakespeare has Iago play the part of villainy “do villainy”, without attempting to logically explain why. Dachslarger does Iinally mention the motivations provided by Iago, at the very end of the paper, by assigning them as reasons typically assigned the villain. He is special however, because he has a ‘peculiar end’ that is never disclosed.

253 Ibid., p.9.

254 Dachslarger, op. cit., p.9.

255 Ibid., p.10. 61 Chapter 5: Theatricality De

One of my Iirst introductions to the concept of theatricality was The Theatre in Life by Nikolai Evreinoff, written in 1927. For Evreinoff, “The art of the theatre is pre-aesthetic, and not aesthetic, for the simple reason that transformation, which is after all the essence of all theatrical art, is more primitive and more easily attainable than formation, which is the essence of aesthetic arts”.256 What immediately comes to mind is the association between transformation and ‘others’. Iago is the other, playing the other of himself. “It was theatre for me when I put on dark spectacles and my father’s cape, and frightened the servants with my hoarse, terrifying voice of an imaginary intruder”257. For the Evreinoff, this is what transformation looked like as a child, and it forms part of a pre-aesthetic human instinct to transform. Iago is an ultimate site for transformation, and naturally this provides great appeal for the actor.

Tracy Davis and Thomas Postlewait provide information on some of the negative connotations accompanying the notion of theatricality, in how the term has been applied historically. Regarding performance, “Each age has its own idea of what is natural and lifelike. It is, in part, a question of taste regarding how apparent the effect is meant to be, and how prominent the contrast between the artiIicial circumstances of enacting a stage play and the degree of the audiences absorption. Is a playgoer to wonder at the actor’s skill, or forget the skill is involved”?258

Peter Brooks describes theatricality as “the mode of excess”, realised preeminently in melodrama.259 Melodrama was the temptation to be resisted by 19th century realist writers,

256 Evreinoff, N. (1927). The Theatre in Life, ed. Nazaroff, A. (translator), London: George E. Harrap. p.24.

257 Ibid.

258 Davis, T. C, and Postlewait, T. (2003). Theatricality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., p.20.

259 Ibid., p.21. 62 and Stanislavsky attempted to explain what it means to act naturally, without theatricality.260 Yet, as Davis and Postlewait postulate, is it not this surplus that makes theatre gripping? They also tell us that now, given the triumph of the modernist alternatives to realism, “many drama critics and theatre scholars (have) decided to reclaim and reconIigure the concept of theatricality from its long, negative heritage”.261

In the 20th century, stage practice began to distance itself from the text, assigning it a new place in the theatrical enterprise. Once under siege, the text was no longer able to guarantee the theatricality of the stage. Thus, it is understandable that scholars and critics began to question the speciIicity of the theatrical act itself. Josette Feral and Ronald Bermingham inform us that lexically speaking, theatricality is both poorly deIined and etymologically unclear. It seems to be much like the “tacit concept" deIined by Michael Polany; "a concrete idea that one can use directly but that one can only describe indirectly”.262 It is a concept that one associates in a privileged way with the theatre. Feral and Bermingham provide us with a conIiguration, which will prove applicable to this study; “Theatricality produces spectacular events for the spectator; it establishes a relationship that differs from the quotidian. It is an act of representation, the construction of a Iiction. As such, theatricality is the imbrication of Iiction and representation in an "other" space in which the observer and the observed are brought face to face. Of all the arts, the theater is best suited to this sort of experimentation”.263

As we have seen, critical approaches to Iago tend to deal with text or performance, sometimes as phenomena that are totally different, sometimes as interrelated, but “they never seem to come to grips with the mutual dependence of the two in a way that does not permanently subordinate one to the other”.264 Theatricality is a useful concept with which to frame Iago, as it concerns both these dimensions. Though the literary mind has traditionally viewed theatricality with suspicion, it is the elements which determine the play’s staged

260 Melodramatic drama and performance were “faulted not only for the surplus of emotionalism and spectacular dramatic action, but also for the lack of truthful representation”. Davis and Postlewait, op. cit., p.21.

261 Ibid.

262 Feral, J. and Bermingham, R. P. (2002). "Theatricality: The SpeciIicity Of Theatrical Language". Substance 31(2/3), Issue 98/99. p.95

263 Ibid., p.105.

264 Donahue, op. cit., p.20. 63 relationship to the audience that forms the composition of a play. Every great play “is the product of of both literary and a theatrical imagination, in intimate inseparable alliance”.265

265 Sachs, M. (1962). "Notes On The Theatricality Of Jean Anouilh's Antigone". The French Review 36 (1 Oct), p.3. 64 Chapter 6: Identi

Schoenmakers Conventions

A study that analyses forms of identiIication in spectators during theatrical communication, of some use when examining Iago, is Henri Schoenmakers’ To be, wanting to be, forced to be. With a focus on emotional impact in theatre theory and reception, the aim of the study is to connect theoretical analysis of theatrical products with empirical audience research. The deIinition of different kinds of identiIication processes is a key preparation for empirical research into the relationships between identiIication and emotion. From the point of view of emotion theory, theatre is a complex phenomena. Emotions result from:

a. External communication between product (makers) and spectator e.g. via structural means such as; dramatic irony; other means which evoke tension or suspense; expression of the used means; quality of acting.

b. Emotions related to those being shown by the characters within the internal communication of the Iictional world.266

Viewing action, that is constructed:

a. We are seeing actors playing characters

b. We, as audience, should like this presented in a pleasing interesting way (all kinds of norms and values related to the aesthetics of theatre are aroused here)

c. We are looking for relationships between this situation and others to make a coherent whole - we are looking for intentions, to distill a message or interpretation.267

Simple scenes can activate complex interpretation and emotional processes in theatre. Amongst all this complexity, surely we are in for a complicated ride with the emotions we may experience for Iago in Othello.

Schoenmakers identiIies the theoretical problem areas of the research, in trying to ascertain differences in spectator identiIicatory processes i.e. variations in qualities of

266 Schoenmakers, H. (1988). "To be, wanting to be, forced to be - identiIication processes in theatrical studies." New directions in audience research - advances in reception and audience research. Tijdschrift voor Theaterwetenschap, 24/25 (1/2), p.138.

267 Ibid., p.139. 65 emotions and intensity of arousal levels. He supposes “that identiIicatory processes make it possible for spectators to ‘break into’ the internal communication of the Iictional world and to experience emotions as if they are one of the agents in that world”.268 The concept of identiIication is used in different ways here to characterise different psychological processes, forming a foundation for further research. With differences in emotions as a result of differences in identiIication, Schoenmakers then considers the main features responsible for the way emotion processes come about. He is concerned with the aspects in which emotional processes in theatrical situations differ from situations in reality. Looking for the relationships between identiIication concepts and the conventions according to which we perceive actions, he provides an analysis of Siegfried J. Schmidt’s two modalities of perception and interpretation; the aesthetic convention and the reality convention.269 Schmidt thinks both can be active at the same time, with one dominating. This is important in relation to theatre “where much is spoken of the real life characteristics of the Iictional products”.270 Schoenmakers believes that Iluctuations occur in the experience of reality and theatricality during reception process. “We consider that identiIication with Iictional characters can be responsible for a diminished notion of theatricality; spectators look at the actions in the same way as the characters do, and then, at least momentarily, no longer see and interpret these actions as theatrical”.271 This seems to be a crucial point in considering Iago’s theatrical appeal. He is perhaps able to induce identiIication on both a theatrical (in his dealings with the audience and the communion involved in meta-theatricality) and diminished-theatrical (when spectators are invested in the perceived ‘real’ interactions with the ensemble) levels.

DeIining the ideniIicatory processes, Schoenmakers classiIies ‘subject’ as the spectator (differentiated by way of self concept and ideal self) and ‘object’ as the character, person, thing we identify or empathise with (actor, character or unclear idea of both). He differentiates too between empathy and identiIication; 1. Empathy involves understanding the perspective of the object, without taking over or having the same cognitions. There may be emotion, but it is not similar to the object. 2. IdentiIication involves processes in which the subject places him or

268 Ibid., p.140.

269 Ibid., p.141.

270 Ibid.

271 Ibid. 66 herself in the situation of an object, and takes it all over and “accordingly experiences the same emotions as he or she thinks the object experiences”.272 Since spectator identiIication process with an actor and character is possible, similarities with either may induce the process. In section 2.2, Schoenmakers describes ‘wish identiIication’, where a subjects’ characteristics may differ from the object, but there are reasons to make himself similar. The object may be in desirable situations, have desirable characteristics or have desirable successes with his or her actions. Iago and his beautiful day (especially when viewed within the ‘psycho’ genre), may certainly warrant this Ilavour of wish identiIication. However, a slight problem arises with Schoenmakers comment, “The object is attractive and functions as a model for the subject who is making himself similar to this object”.273 Hopefully we do not all desire a life of murderous plotting for ourselves, but we have been considering the other traits Iago possesses - morality aside - which make him attractive. This is complex of course, in terms of the emotions generated, and the fact that they will also occur after identiIication has been induced. He makes an important comment here, that it is not possible to merely analyse the product, to know if a desirable position has been shown. But to stimulate wish identiIication, makers “present the kind of Iictional images which they believe are attractive to the majority of spectators”.274 Just how much ‘attractive’ did Shakespeare inject into his Iago, which may stimulate this form of process, perhaps even assisted by the ambiguity of the play?

Schoenmakers describes ‘IdentiIication with the author’, or in the theatre, maker. He believes that in certain aspects this is not fundamentally different from identiIication with a character, as it is the same perspective. “The main cause of this kind of identiIication is the notion that the actions seen are theatrical communicative actions and not natural actions”, prompting the quest for possible intentions.275 Dachslarger told us not to consider Iago on any ground, other than theatrical. Do we identify with the maker in this way, in what he created by theatrical means, in Iago? What was Shakespeare saying exactly with Iago? Though Shakespeare’s writing probably didn't involve

272 Schoenmakers, op. cit., p.142.

273 Ibid., p.143.

274 Ibid. Shoenmakers then details the work of Hans Robert Jauss and his Iive kinds of identiIication modality (associative, admiring, sympathetic, cathartic, ironic), dominant in different periods of literary history. Jauss believed these could also appear simultaneously. Schoenmakers tests their usefulness, in regards to whether the concepts differ from those he discusses. Ibid., p.145.

275 Ibid., p.152. 67 the same distance from the Iictional product that Schoenmakers has in mind here for this form of identiIication (it is a more ‘epic’ form that he speaks of), it is interesting to consider the Shakespearean context for performance and the theatricality of the role. This form of identiIication involves the interpretation and emotional impact of the whole performance, and as the current paper recognises, it is interesting that Shakespeare poses questions rather than presenting answers in Othello. With ‘primary Iilmic identiIication’ (or ‘instrumental identiIication’), the spectator feels subject of the actions in the Iictional world, via physical means. It is a typical identiIication found in Iilms, much manipulated by Iilmmakers. Branagh Iago, will be presented as a worthy recipient of these means in Oliver Parker’s Iilm Othello. Schoenmakers, like Manfred PIister, acknowledges the importance of information - that it may constrain, or even preclude identiIication. Iago’s speech relaying his intentions276 is cited by Schoenmakers as an example of the spectator having more information than Othello at this point, preventing identiIication with Othello.277 He then informs us that ‘theatrical projection identiIication’ reveals a special mechanism which can be at work, when we are looking at theatrical products. Spectators can manipulate themselves by virtue of the theatrical frame, identifying much more intensely with a character in Iiction, than in real life.278 This may explain how we are so caught up, in a connected way, with Iago as he plans.

All these concepts outlined by Schoenmakers may Iind different levels of focus and occur simultaneously, reinforcing or obstructing one another, within a Iiction. He Iinally then considers ‘mechanisms’ for inducing identiIication, in addition to the concepts.279 These may also work together to induce identiIication, possibly at more intense levels: “When instrumental identiIication with a camera eye is used to show the Iictive world as a character sees it and when we have already identiIied with this character because of similarity feelings, we will feel more intense identiIication”.280

276 Othello, A2.S3.

277 Schoenmakers, op. cit., p.153.

278 Ibid., p.155.

279 Ibid., p.157. Similarity between subject and object; the experienced attraction of an object or situation; theatrical projection; instrumental means.

280 Ibid., p.158. Which sounds similar to Tullmann’s “fascinated attention approach”, discussed next. 68 Recalling the aesthetic and reality conventions, Shoenmakers reveals that “(w)hen the aesthetic convention is dominant both actor and character are visible, at least spectators think so. IdentiIication with both actor and character is possible”.281 It is interesting that, as above, the actor is included here. This may be relevant to the idea of masks (behind masks even) and Iago as actor. “When the reality convention is dominant, only the characters are visible, although they will be seen as persons in their own right in the Iiction. IdentiIication with only these characters is possible”.282 Othello can be played as realism, it may also be played for its theatricality (as the Dutch version discussed in Playing Iago will demonstrate). But furthermore, Iago may Ilip between the aesthetic and reality conventions during his performances within the play, making greater modes of identiIication possible.

Tullmann and Sympathy for The Devil

In an exploration of sympathy and fascination, Katherine Tullmann asks why we form strong emotional attachments to unlikable and immoral characters during our engagements with Iiction. Like Schoenmakers, she makes the distinction that in ‘real life’ we would loathe these Iigures. Using Noel Carroll’s expression, she then offers explanations for the SDP or ‘sympathy for the devil phenomenon’. For readers of John Milton’s Paradise Lost and the character of Satan, she tells us that “it is almost impossible to resist admiring this larger-than- life character who shows such determination and resilience even in the face of certain defeat by an inIinitely stronger enemy”.283 She addresses the interesting aesthetic and moral questions raised in the strange way you want him to succeed, though you know you’re not supposed to. Emotions towards immoral or unlikable Iictional entities here include sympathy, as well as; admiration, compassion, empathy, pity, pride and joy. Tullmann asks, how can charming and likeable features outweigh immoral traits and actions? In exploring the question, she critically presents several solutions to the SDP - a “genuine psychological phenomenon”284 - which should then be explained in terms of our mental capacities. She also

281 Ibid., p.159.

282 Ibid.

283 Tullmann, op. cit., p.115.

284 Tullmann, op. cit., p.116. 69 seeks to address the inadequacies of a number of other explanations. A crucial element required for the phenomenon to occur, involves a pre-condition; the characters must elicit the emotion of fascination. Her own explanation of the SDP, ‘the fascinated attention approach’ (inspired by and expanding on Murray Smith’s position), contends that “our allegiances with morally perverse characters are mediated by fascination”.285

Tullmann takes issue with Gregory Currie’s reliance on ‘simulation theory’ to explain our level of care for Iictional characters, as simulation may not be required for pro-attitudes. Narrative does much of the work of providing us with our understanding of mental states, in the author’s detail (the construct), to interpret, understand and emotionally respond to. “Some narratives are opaque, making it challenging to understand how a character thinks or feels. It takes more cognitive work to understand the characters’ context, past actions and personality”.286 Tullmann questions Currie’s (and simulation theory in general) claim that we cannot directly simulate the mental states of a character because we cannot understand them, along with the empirical and phenomenological plausibility of being able to adapt ones current beliefs and take on imaginary new (and likely very disparate in our case) ones. Tullmann suggests a simpler approach, with less “assumptions concerning the ontology of Iictions and the nature of our mental states about them”.287 It is more likely that Iiction provides an opportunity to explore alternative viewpoints, and that it involves something that appeals more to our actual experiences. Matthew Kieran suggests that we are able to feel sympathy with an immoral character because we suppose that he inhabits a Iictional world that is quite different from our own. So Kieran’s “imaginative distance amounts to a psychological distance between an audience and a devilish character”,288 which allows us to feel free to experience pity, compassion and sympathy. Tullmann is not convinced of the utility of this argument for the SDP, as often the dramatic worlds are very similar to our own. Also, “We are generally not emotionally distanced from immoral protagonists even if we are in other ways (physically or ontologically)”.289

285 Ibid.

286 Ibid., p.119.

287 Ibid., p.120.

288 Kieran in ibid.

289 Ibid., p.121. 70 In considering the methods used by makers to create pro-attitude feelings in the spectator, Tullmann Ileshes out the notion of ‘pre-focusing’. She sets out to investigate certain qualities of immoral characters that create strong positive responses, and also, the types of responses we have. She Iinds that attractive and desirable qualities, may exist alongside immoral ones. An example of positive qualities imperative for our sympathy, are seen in the character Dexter, from the US TV series of the same name; he is handsome, highly intelligent and innovative and embodies an admirable degree of familial loyalty.290 Besides attractive physical and mental traits, characters like Dexter are exotic; “They are those rambunctious ‘bad-boys’ that charm and allure us with their daring and wild antics”.291 In response to these traits, we may Iind the characters intriguing; “We are curious to learn more about them. We pity them or feel compassion for them when we learn about awful things that happened in their past, or when other characters manipulate or exploit them. We are often glad when they succeed, and generally disappointed when they fail”.292 We experience this apparently, even it may feel perverse or inappropriate.

Tullmann considers fascination an emotion proper; “it is a reIlection of an object that serves our interest or well-being, an object that has a particular kind of property. We are fascinated about particular objects that interest us in the right way”.293 There is also a qualitative feeling we associate with fascination; an absorption or interest. Three features of fascinating objects are outlined by Tullmann. They should be: a. A curiosity (exotic) b. Attractive (physically/mentally) c. Cognitively interesting (we want to learn more about them).294

290 In him we Iind another pretender, a fraud, but a brilliantly convincing one who inIiltrates several sides/camps and manages to skilfully juggle them all. Having watched all eight seasons of Dexter (on Tullmann’s recommendation) it became clear how Iago, like Dexter, could be read as a psychopath. Both own a certain strength and liberty in being ‘unfeeling’, as they are not susceptible to the vulnerabilities of human emotion. Dexter too seems to exist with a perpetual beautiful morning…in the sense that he gets away with murder, despite all the complications. There is attraction in the ingenuity, practicality and brilliance of all this, in the watching. Hell and the Devil also feature as motifs of Iago and Dexter, and there is great potential for theatricality in this addition.

291 Tullmann, op. cit., p.123.

292 Ibid.

293 Ibid., p.125.

294 Ibid. 71 Tullmann conIirms that there is no set limit to the things we can Iind fascinating. Her viewpoint is open-ended, yet precise enough to accommodate individual differences. Being such, these features may characterize an object (including a person) as a fascinating ‘attractive, interesting curiosity’. Generally speaking, we need to be fascinated by immoral characters before we can feel sympathy for them. “Fascination is achieved by how the character is portrayed in the narrative as possessing the exotic and curious traits that I have described. Once this is achieved, other aspects of the narrative will cause us to feel sympathy for them”.295 Therefore, the shaping powers of the narrative - what is shown and what is not shown - also inIluences our pro-attitudes. Tullmann describes how, “(n)ot only must we be fascinated buy a devilish character, we generally must also be shown particular features of a character that deliberately focuses our attention away from their immoral behaviours or traits, and highlight the fascinating features”.296 It is this fascinated attention approach, that generally makes sympathy for an immoral character possible.

If “(i)t is the artists task to create a work with a fascinating character that holds our interest”,297 Shakespeare has certainly achieved this with Iago. Providing fascinating qualities, makes us care for immoral characters and pre-focusing helps fashion such characters. Both within the narrative and in the theatrical devices of his maker, there is much Iago contributes to our interest. And what about the issue of how to feel about all this? “Generally speaking we do not harm actual people by feeling sympathy for immoral characters, at least, not directly”.298 Tullmann also points out that we may “often have pro-attitudes towards immoral characters while at the same time condemning many of their immoral actions, rather than radical shifting our moral values for the duration of the Iiction”.299

295 Ibid., p.126.

296 Ibid., p.127.

297 Ibid., p.128.

298 Tullmann, op. cit., p.129.

299 Ibid. 72 Chapter 7: Psychopathy

This paper presents a reading of Iago as a psychopath, which is his case, is a kind of theatrical disorder. A difIicult question here is identifying the difference (especially in performance) between ‘no motivation’ and the motivation being mere excitement… the thrill. The later is still a form of motivation, it is just highly disproportionate. The metaphor often used to describe perpetrators of psychopathic acts, is ‘monster’. The theatre may provide such monsters with a space to run riot and Shakespeare, ahead of the game, allowed Iago complete licence to do so.

Developments in Theatre and Psychopathy; West, A. C. Bradley and Cleckey.

Fred West, a contemporary of Dachslarger’s, writes about Iago the Psychopath and in doing so provides some history regarding the character’s performance and reception, in line with developing knowledge of psychology. Though West acknowledges the lingering inIluence of miracle and morality plays in some Elizabethan drama, he also points out that the time is widely recognised as a period of great interest in what is now known a psychology. Dramatists were intrigued by the bizarre workings of the human brain and West views Iago a psychological case study, and an accurate portrait of a psychopath. First, he questions Iago’s motivation by quoting Daniel Stempel who said of Iago; “His stated motives are Ilimsy rationalisations that have little to do with either fact or logic; they are Ilotsam tossed up from the depths that even his subtle intellect cannot plumb”.300 Like Dachslarger, West tracks the traditions informing the creation of Iago, foreshadowed in Shakespeare’s Aaron from Titus Andronicus, as demonstrating the playwright’s early awareness of psychopathic characteristics. Iago is however a more complex psychopath than this, as he does not regard his own actions as horrendously evil. West identities the relatively recent emergence of clinical studies on the subject of psychopathy, which though for A.C. Bradley (1851-1935) was not yet widespread enough to properly diagnose him as such, he came close to doing so at the turn of the century.301

300 Stemple in West, F. (1978). "Iago The Psychopath". South Atlantic Bulletin 43 (2). p.27.

301 Ibid., p.28. 73

The once wastebasket category had now given way to a sharper delineated clinical proIile, and an awareness of this ‘type’. Hervey Cleckey made his landmark study in 1941, and the psychiatrist’s description of the psychopath is apparently astonishing in how close it comes to A. C. Bradley’s analysis, half a century later. A. C. Bradley fails to delineate a major characteristic however; “he could not quite stomach his own analysis that Iago is a moral blank, so he protested Iago is not a monster, but a man with a conscience, however faint”.302 West believes this untrue of Iago, stating that he is devoid of conscience with no remorse, “one of the central; features of psychopathy”.303 A. C. Bradley apparently approved of what he called Coleridge’s “astute phrase” (previously mentioned) and also supported the poet philosopher’s attitude that Iago “was by no means a man of strong feelings and passions…but decidedly cold by temperament”.304 This matches Cleckey’s statement that psychopaths show; “a general poverty of affect. While it is true that he sometimes becomes excited and shouts as is in a rage or seems to exult in enthusiasm and again weeps in what appear to be bitter tears or speaks eloquent and mournful words about his misfortunes or his follies…mature, wholehearted anger, true or consistent indignation, honest, sold grief, sustaining pride, deep joy, genuine despair, are reactions not like to be found within this scale”.305 As an actor, this was precisely my approach to treating Iago’s emotional content and there is a tangible sense of performance and even childlike shows of passion in this account.

A particularly disturbing aspect of Cleckey’s psychopath is that “(m)ore often than not such a person will seem particularly agreeable and make a distinctly positive impression when one Iirst meets him”.306 Iago looks like the real thing, which also resonates with what esteemed actor Edwin Booth (1833-1893) had to say of performing Iago (see actor research). Cleckey also describes the lack of any apparent goal in the terrible deeds of the psychopath. How do we account for this in the Iigure of Iago? A. C. Bradley provides military explanations, believing Iago an asocial creature who in time of war would be “in his element, and praised for

302 Ibid., p.29.

303 McCord and McCord in West, op. cit., p.29.

304 Bradley in ibid.

305 Cleckey in ibid. Later West describes Iago’s sweeping rages as “a readiness of expression rather than a strength of feeling”, which conjures performative deception. Ibid., p.33.

306 Cleckey in ibid. 74 his actions, not condemned”.307 McCord and McCord state that the “psychopath often seems willing to sacriIice everything for excitement. His satisfactions have always been Ileeting and highly changeable from childhood through maturity”.308 This is rather ideal for a villain with a few hours of stage time, and somehow perfectly conjures Hoskins Iago, who we will meet anon (also in actor research). Cleckey makes a fascinating observation that “in a life devoid of higher-order stimuli, of primary or serious goals and values, of intense and meaningful satisfactions”,309 a Iigure who makes great sacriIices for trivial excitement can be more fully understood. ‘Motive’ for this individual cannot be understood in the ‘normal’ adult sense - it is almost childlike. West believes the scene of Othello is the set for an “exciting prank”, irresistible for the likes of Iago.

A. C. Bradley warns us of our villain’s consummate skills as a liar and that “one must constantly remember not to believe a syllable that Iago utters on any subject”.310 A possible explanation for his ease and ability in this regard, in that psychopaths don't set out to lie in the “self-conscious guilt-best way normal person would”.311 As a psychopath, Iago is simply ‘ok’ with lying, and does so with unwavering conIidence. Cleckey says; “Typically he is at ease…His simple statement…carries special powers of conviction. Candor and trustworthiness seem implicit in him at such times”312 Othello may not then be such a fool for being duped, as he shares the opinions of all who know Iago. A. C. Bradley tells us that in Othello, “Evil is…united with an intellectual superiority so great that (one) watches its advance fascinated and appalled”.313 So, psychopaths may be smart too. According to Cleckey, “Such evil is compatible, and even appears to ally itself easily with exceptional powers of will and intellect”.314 This is dramatised in the Iigure of Iago and again, is dynamic material for the theatrical villain. His self assuredness in planning and executing plans is a match with Cleckey’s psychopath who’s

307 Ibid., p.31.

308 McCord and McCord in ibid.

309 Cleckey in ibid.

310 A. C. Bradley in ibid., p.32.

311 Ibid.

312 Cleckey in West, op. cit., p.32.

313 A. C. Bradley in ibid., p.33.

314 Ibid. 75 “relative serenity is likely to be noteworthy”.315 A less-desirable trait is acknowledged by West in Iago’s egocentricity, which is again, not of the ‘normal’ variety. A. C. Bradley describes how, “The most delightful thing to such a man would be something that gave an extreme satisfaction to his sense of power and superiority: and if it involved secondly, the triumphant exertion of his abilities, and, thirdly, the excitement of danger, his delight would be consummated”.316 The danger is assured when his superiority is met with a front, and he subjects those have have affronted it to his will.

Though A. C. Bradley was not able to fully accept his own diagnosis of Iago - as a Iigure too monstrous to be human - West believes such “moral blanks” exist in the world, in frightening numbers. “Shakespeare had observed that there exist perfectly sane people in whom fellow-feeling of any kind is extremely weak while egoism is virtually absolute, and thus he made Iago”.317 For West, Iago’s only motivation is an immature urge towards instant pleasure. He describes Iago’s lack of remorse at the play’s conclusion as the crowning touch; “All the horror is in just this - that there is no horror”.318 It is interesting that during two out of the four Iago performances considered for analysis in the coming chapter, he is laughing as the curtain falls.

Badfella Iago

In Badfellas: Movie Psychos, Popular Culture and Law, Nicole Rafter provides an analysis of a new genre of ‘Psycho Iilms’, belonging to the law Iilm category. These have received some previous attention in literature, but Rafter believes earlier attempts have failed to frame the Iilms in a meaningful way (as a genre or larger category) and suffer from a lack of clarity. She turns to clinicians for an exact deIinition of the psychopath, as a basis for deIining psycho movies as a genre. The aforementioned Cleckey wrote his Iirst book in 1941 (though it was revised up until the 1980’s), and Rafter calls on a more contemporary deIinition in the key symptoms described by Psychologist Robert Hare, in 1994 (see Figure 3). These symptoms

315 Cleckey in ibid.

316 Bradley in ibid.

317 Ibid.

318 Ibid., p.35. 76 could literally be used as a checklist of traits for Iago (all are clearly present in the character) and again, the key diagnoses concern the psychopath’s ability to be likeable and charming, though suffering a poverty of emotion.319 Similar symptoms are used by the American Psychiatric Association to deIine ‘antisocial personalty disorders’, which is its current term for psychopathy. In both instances, it is not expected every psychopath will exhibit all symptoms. Diagnosis is applied to people in whom combinations of these symptoms may predominate. The condition was Iirst identiIied in the 18th century (a century after Shakespeare), and the key traits stressed by clinicians since are “self-centredness and a lack of conscience: psychopaths lack remorse for the harms they commit to gratify themselves”.320 Rafter then suggests that the clinical symptoms described can add an engrossing and entertaining dimension to Iilm.

As well as possessing versatility and appeal as characters on Iilm, psychopaths provide fertile terrain for scholars interested in intersections of popular culture and law; “Lawless by deIinition, psychopathic characters offer occasions for exploring what movies say about our need for law. Their narratives show how law reacts to or is rendered helpless by individuals who sneer at legal boundaries and the threat of punishment”.321 Rafter departs from examples of Iilms with central pyscho-characters; “My key requirement, aside from centrality, is that the character be depicted as conscienceless and innately evil; psychopathy is an ongoing condition, not a transitory afIliction”.322 So, if Iago is a psychopath, he always has been so. Also, “To be included on my list, a Iilm must feature a character whose cruelty is disproportionate to the events that trigger it; the nastiness must be to some degree inexplicable”.323 Rafter hunts not the ‘goodfellas’ - the ordinary criminals who cook pasta and blunder through life like the rest of us - but the ‘badfellas', the truly wicked criminal who seem monstrous. The monster Iago, seems to nod in sly agreement at Iitting this bill.

319 The very last symptom is the only exception for Iago, as we have no such information regarding his past. Dexter also exhibits most of these symptoms - apart from irresponsibility perhaps - including the last.

320 Rafter, op. cit., p.341.

321 Ibid., p.342.

322 Ibid.

323 Ibid. 77 Psycho Iilms are basically concerned with control, its loss and restoration (both of which are of equal importance); “Together they foster a delicious hypocrisy. By concentrating on a central psychopathic Iigure, these Iilms encourage viewers’ fantasies of violent egotism, self-indulgent predation, domination and control. However, the Iilms nearly always bring us back to a world of law through the capture, defeat or death of the psychopath”.324 In this way, we get to have things ‘both ways’ i.e. we identify with the lawless criminal, yet return to order by the end. Rafter mentions that this is also present in ‘crime Iilm’ genres in general, but with these Iilms, the protagonists are much harder to identify with, posing more severe tests to the law than ordinary criminals. It appears that Psychopaths are special. On the level of legal discourse, the theme of control plays out in demonstrations of the need for law. Psycho movies do so, by progressing through three stages:

1. Demonstration of the necessity for law by displaying a central character who invades the ordinary world and disrupts or destroys it

2. Demonstration of the inadequacy of law to contain these characters

3. Restoration of legal order, most often achieved through extra-legal means.

Rafter explains that the single most important element in deIining psycho movies, is the psycho character. The Iilms are completely rooted in character and the meanings that the characters generate - this is a distinguishing feature.325 Slashers, serial-killer Iilms and their kin, for Rafter, contain Ilat, faceless and almost supernatural protagonists; “They give us devils, whereas psycho movies give us villains”.326 Present, one again, in this narrative is the idea that depth and complexity create something extra - something more human.

Psycho movies predominantly revolve around a single character, who is male. The most revealing way to classify the protagonist Rafter identiIies in her study, “is by the the impulses

324 Ibid., p.343.

325 A very useful footnote on psycho Iilm plots; “One follows the career of the psycho, tracing it from an initial point of intrusion through increasingly monstrous predations to a Iinal downfall. A second plot pattern is built around the hunt for a psychopath, a search that is often led by a legal authority. The third type combines the other two, sometimes juxtaposing the psycho’s career with the avengers hunt in alternating sequences and occasionally drawing parallels as well as contrasts between the two”. This may be used to (fairly accurately) classify the plot-lines of Othello, Dexter and Hannibal, respectively. Rafter, op. cit., p.343.

326 Ibid., p.344. 78 that propel them to commit their evil deeds”.327 This yields three categories which she uses to categorise stock psycho protagonists; ‘predators’, ‘whackos' and ‘aspiring Nietzches’ (though combinations of these are also possible). Predators are the most rational of the bunch, having an excuse such as money or revenge for their psychopathic behaviour, though it is by deIinition, an overreaction. She cites Max Cady from Cape Fear as an example. These are the Machiavellis, “cold, cunning, and calculating. Monomaniacal in pursuit of their goals, abnormal by dint of what they will do to achieve those goals”.328 Iago could be such an anti-social type, scheming and plotting to satisfy his desires, depending on how we interpret (or project on) him. Whackos are far less rational; “Gripped by insane desires, they are incapable of self control”.329 They too may be predatory, though motives emphasise psychological deviation. Jack Torrance from The Shining is the example, as he is governed by homicidal impulses over which he has no control. An aspiring Nietzsche, “assumes the right to toy with others and inIlict pain. These characters aspire to be superman, gods who decide the fate of others. They, too, are predatory and mentally unbalanced, but their Iilms emphasise their Nietzschean ambition to rise above the human condition”.330 This is the description which sounds most like Iago. The Iigure of John Doe from Seven, who “plays God by turning New York City into a stage for the production of a medieval morality play”,331 is Rafter’s eerily relevant representative of this category.

Something of the previous discussion on dramatic construction and relationships between forces and characters may be found in Rafter’s description of ‘predictable secondary characters’ that exist in addition to the stock psycho protagonists. These Iigures are designed to emphasise the psychopath’s lawlessness. ‘Good bad-guys’ for example, are characters “whose lesser moral Ilaws throw the psychopath’s monstrosity into higher relief”332 and Rodder's immediately comes to mind. ‘Pure innocents’ (perhaps both Othello and Desdemona) illustrate “the weakness of virtue when faced with malice, and hence the need for law”.333

327 Ibid.

328 Ibid., p.346

329 Ibid.

330 Ibid., p.347.

331 A spookily relevant example. Ibid., p.348.

332 Ibid., p.349.

333 Rafter, op. cit., p.349. 79 Through contrasts, the secondary characters highlight the barbarity of the psycho’s transgressions, making a return to lawfulness seem even more imperative. Rafter describes a fundamental dialectic of disorder and control that is established in psycho Iilms, through the stock characters, but also through discourses about law. Legal issues are often organised around the theme of ‘intrusion’. “A psycho penetrates a previously lawful space, creates havoc, and immobilises the law”.334 Rafter suggests that reacting to this via legal means will prove ineffective for the other characters and the law must be taken into their own hands.

What the psychopath intrudes on, ultimately, is the normality of our ordinary lives. “Often the psycho is discovered at the centre of a placid family or community, hidden there after the initial intrusion, working malignantly from within”.335 It does instinctively make us ask (irrelevant as it may be), how long has Iago been intruding in this way? Intrusions may be “mental or symbolic”. The character of Bruno from Strangers on a Train may serve as a strong site for comparison with Iago, as someone who invades the life of another “not physically but through psychological insinuation”.336 Iago does all his work via insinuation and as far as the current study is concerned, he presents as a psychological character within the play. “The psychopath is always there, waiting to intrude, to knock innocent people off their feet and take over. What can protect us, if not law”.337 This suitably lurking image of the psychopath - particularly prevalent (and frightening) in McKellen’s performance - is perfectly Iitting of Iago in Othello, especially with regard to the very domestic situation and the high personal/emotional stakes.

Psycho movies “begin by demonstrating that danger is ubiquitous, lurking even in apparent normality. Like death itself, a psycho may intrude upon us at the next roadside rest, or ringing the doorbell one evening”.338 The very randomness of the threat intensiIies the need for law, though law is often powerless against such intruders, making ordinary people into vigilantes. Rafter claims that in a few interesting exceptions the psycho is not really defeated, again citing John Doe, who “engineers his own arrest and death, even while punishing the law

334 Ibid., p.351.

335 Ibid., p.352.

336 Ibid.

337 Ibid.

338 Ibid., p. 355. 80 in the form of the younger detective”.339 This paper argues that Iago’s own end is ambiguous and may even be seen as such a non-defeat. Rafter states that by recognising the themes of this category, we create a deeper understanding of relationships between law and society and ways which popular culture mirrors conIlicting needs and desires. “These include the desire to indulge ourselves in the sort of fantasies that the psychopath enacts for us, together with the need to be protected against those fantasies and the psychos who embody them”.340 This reveals that in the poplar imagination, scepticism about and distrust of the law are at least as powerful as reverence. Approaching Iago from this perspective, makes him as relevant and theatrically viable as any modern monster of the screen.

339 Ibid.

340 Ibid., p.357. 81 Chapter 8: Playing Iago

It seems that now more than ever, there is a concern with Iinding something unique about our villainous representations, and also with the life accomplished actors lend them. Actor fascination with Iago may Iind investment on two levels, professionally and as a person. As far as the audience is concerned, the later is more important - it should be an interesting person we engage with. The audience may also however, admire the professional capacities of the actor in their approach to characterisation. With Iago, the skills of both are on show for audience scrutiny. Performing Iago, and even writing about him, carries with it a sense of responsibility to Shakespeare, to the play, and to Iago. However, as a Iigure, there is much of Iago that is unexplainable, unknown and unknowable. In the wake of ambiguity and the lack of answers (indeed, a continuing onslaught of questions), how can we remain ‘true’ to Shakespeare’s Othello?

Legacy

In the post-dramatic age of theatre,341 is there a greater freedom in production as far as classic texts are concerned? Donahue, discussing how the relationship of text to performance is fraught with controversy, reminds us how the literary tradition places great value on written text, as is frequently emphasised with Shakespeare. His works then “become monuments of historical importance and many feel that we should not tamper with them”.342 This highlights a wider tension, between responsibility to something almost sacred and a freedom to question, deconstruct and even disrupt this (though with no less reverence for the works themselves). Text itself is essentially Ilexible343 and Radical director Calixto Bieito has demonstrated an ability to reinvent classic texts, stripping them of the legacy of past productions and imagining them for contemporary audiences. Of his work (which has been deemed sacrilegious by some) he had the following to say; “Shakespeare was working as part of a team, and I’m not just talking about the actors here, but also other writers like Marlowe. Shakespeare is like Brecht,

341 See Lehmann, H-T. (2006). Postdramatic Theatre. Karen Jürs-Munby (trans). London and New York: Routledge.

342 Donahue, op. cit., p.16.

343 Ibid., p.64. 82 they’re borrowing cultural and literary and narrative references from everywhere”.344 Should we then follow Bieto’s example and practice less of a need to worship text, by borrowing in conjunction with others? “With a classic you have to reinvent everything, you are effectively a kind of author. You have a text but you have to create it, you have to illuminate it with your own ideas, a product of you and your culture. I think that’s maybe why I prefer the classics”.345

Source material which speciIically addresses the embodiment of Iago on the stage, is less abundant than that which details his inner workings it seems. The role is actually thought to have been Iirst played by Robert Armin, who typically played intelligent clown roles amongst Shakespeare’s players. Armin is suggested by certain scholars to be the Iirst Iago, on the grounds that Iago sings two drinking songs in Othello (most of the songs in Shakespeare's plays from 1600 to 1610 were sung by the characters played by the actor) and that this was the sole play between As You Like It and Timon of Athens that has no fool or clown for him to play.346 This speculation is fascinating with regards to the songs and clowning traditions, both highly theatrical ingredients of our villain. Accounts of productions from the Elizabethan period focus on emotion; “a funeral elegy refers to Burbage’s performance of the ‘grievèd Moor’”.347 Here we Iind the legacy (much as it was still in Olivier’s time) of the Great Ones, in the ‘Principal Actor’. Clearly, this is where the audiences attention was. Though both characters have been slow burners in maintaining our interest, it is Iago who somehow slips under the radar. Othello remained a popular play in the Shakespearean repertory throughout its Iirst centuries of existence. The title role always dominated the play, by comparison with more recent productions, which have obviously diversiIied. The earliest Iago I encountered was Orson Welles’ very grim and lecherous (though also extremely camp) contribution from 1951. The next was from the 1965 Stuart

344 Delgado, M. (2003). Calixto Bieito: 'Reimagining the Text for the Age in which it is being Staged' - An Interview. Contemporary Theatre Review, Vol.13 (3), p.63.

345 Ibid., p.60.

346 The two sources used here are; Verdi's Shakespeare: Men of the Theater, Garry Wills, p. 88-90. Shakespeare and the Poet's Life, Gary Schmidgall, p.157. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iago. In his article, Daniel Rosenthal says, “There appears to be no record of the name or age of the performer who Iirst played Iago to Richard Burbage’s Othello”. One post below the article claims that the Iirst portrayal to have been noted, was from a Joseph Taylor in 1619. https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2011/oct/14/how-old-is-shakespeare- iago

347 https://notevenpast.org/ourstories/othello-a-stage-history/ 83 Burge's Iilm which starred Lawrence Olivier as Othello, and it is surprising how lost Iago becomes amongst the spectacle of Olivier’s performance.

John Barton of the RSC produced a version of Othello in 1971 in which he managed to secure sympathy for Iago, by making Desdemona the overwhelmingly more sensual of the two lovers and by having his actors play the assumption that Cassio and Othello had indeed both slept with Emilia. In addition to the wide range and diversity of interpretation, there are speciIic historical and theatrical sensibilities involved in engagement and translation here. The degree of audience interest in understanding a villain, may have had strong repercussions for performing such a Iigure (as mentioned, this was not such a concern to the Elizabethans, but certainly is now). How has Iago been embodied, within the genres he has spanned and traversed? Amongst all of this, how he may have progressed in this regard, is a curious question.

Showmanship

In Shakespeare’s Villains: A Masterclass In Evil,348 Charles Isherwood reviews David Berkoff’s one man show, in which apparently “Top billing notwithstanding, the Bard is relegated to the backseat”. This seems to suggest that modern appropriations of Shakespeare favour interpretation, translation and performance over the author and his creation. More than anything, this production was a masterclass in ‘showmanship’, and not villains or evil, claims Isherwood. Ultimately, he concedes that it this that arrests the audience, regardless of their thoughts on the content Berkoff dishes out. “The writing is clever and the man is charismatic, so the audience doesn't mind”. This makes an interesting comment about how Berkoff approaches villains as a performer - through wit, comedy and showmanship. It was Iago who opened the show apparently, despite the fact that Berkoff brands him a ‘mediocre’ villain. “That’s not to say mediocrity is a crime,” he assures us. “Most of you are mediocre, after all. That’s why you go to the theatre. To watch other mediocrities”. Most entertaining for Isherwood was Berkoff’s “lamenting the difIiculty of Iighting against audience’s recollections of the great Olivier, whom he sees haunting the English stages like the ghost of Hamlets father”. This makes a clear statement about the responsibilities of the actor in playing such a canonical

348 Isherwood, C. (2001). “Shakespeare’s Villains: A Masterclass in Evil”. Variety, Penske Business Media, Jan 22-28, Vol.381(9). p.50. 84 role (particularly at Berkoff’s level of success), with regards to what they might bring to it. The weight of history and the great performers who have deIined this history, must sit heavy on the shoulders. In Berkoff’s hands, the characters became performers, “illustrating their thoughts with witty Ilourishing arms and hands, blasting through the Bard’s verse with the barking gusto of vaudevillian clowns”.

Reviewing a 2011 production of Othello, Daniel Rosenthal raises an issue which though it may seem trivial, provides an interesting point of entry into the embodied Iago and staying true to text; his age.349 According to Shakespeare, Iago is 28, but this is one reference that actors appear comfortable adjusting. The review describes Dominic West’s “superb performance as Shakespeare’s consummate deceiver”, despite the extra falsehood slipped in by the villain, when he lied about his age.350 Contemporary English director Rupert Goold reports in the article, that life expectancy in Shakespeare’s time meant the tragedy’s original audiences would have regarded 28 as at least 10 years older then we do. If Iago’s deadly resentment at being passed over by Othello for promotion from ensign to lieutenant comes across more strongly the older he appears, Rosenthal proposes the actor simply cut the "offending" age reference, just as Ian McKellen did at the RSC in 1989, when he was 50. Noteworthy here is how age may impinge on our assumptions about Iago and his motivations. The line was cut in my own performance, for no other reason than it was considered expendable. Leaving the script in tact can be risky it seems; “from 1981…a 39-year-old Bob Hoskins sounds rather sheepish suggesting that he's 28. Kenneth Branagh, a youthful looking 34 in Oliver Parker's 1995 feature Iilm, gets away with it, as, I imagine, did the dashingly handsome Laurence Olivier at 31, opposite Ralph Richardson's Moor at the Old Vic in 1938”. All this reads like a contest of who looks good and who is dashing…shallow or signiIicant?351

I was fortunate enough to witness a recent Dutch adaptation of Othello at Frascati in Amsterdam (2017). Despite the long relationship I have had with the play and the character, this production marked the Iirst live production I have seen, which is quite revealing. What

349 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2011/oct/14/how-old-is-shakespeare-iago

350 On the page Iago is ‘four times seven years’ (A1.S3.L.299-300), West (then 42) tweaked this to ‘Iive times seven’. Others too have “aged Iago for credibility’s sake”, McInnerny (then 50) being one, who at the Globe gave ‘six times seven’ as his Iigure. Ibid.

351 As it turns out, some cases may be signiIicant after all. Goold wonders if the 1980 National Theatre production, involving a then 52 year old Michael Bryant (with thinning sliver hair) as Iago, didn't maintain the original age, playing the line for an intentional laugh. Ibid. 85 was apparent for me when engaging with the production, was how much Iago will be deIined by the Othello landscape, whatever that may be. Production - the combined collaborative ideas and inspiration of the collective - will shape him to a signiIicant degree. This production was described as, “Confronting and with a touch of humor…In Bukvić's version, racism is central: how does a white world deal with the success of a black man? An exciting performance in which is played at the sharpest of the cut”.352

Iago was certainly not the focus of this production, and clearly the text was creatively adapted (de-constructed even, I would say) to bring fresh perspectives to light. In terms of expectation, I had hoped for a degree of charm in Iago and found it, in his gooIiness. Above all else, this Iago was a comedian. Though unbalanced, he was a ‘feeling’ Iago (demonstrated during various episodic explosions, which are also evident in McKinnerny’s Iago), from the socially awkward class. Concerning exteriors, the costume of the villain is also quite a fascinating part of the construct. Often, Iago as the ensign, is dressed in the modest garments that accompany his rank - he Iits in, just as he did here. Emilia and Iago were in fact a comedy duo of sorts, their repartee providing much amusement throughout the show and I thought it marvellous to widen the circle of amusement to include the interactions between Iago and his wife. There were however also Ilashes of menace, brutally delivered by Iago in contrast with this lanky-clown exterior, along with an extreme sense of theatricality in all his interactions with the audience.353 This Iago was also a ‘lurker’ who was constantly appearing suddenly, or loitering in the background. As a part of the audience, I was very aware of collectively watching Iago the actor, playing the villain, and the compulsion we so often had to shake our heads in amusement at his antics. I could also sense a palpable enjoyment in watching this play out, in new and original ways.

352 https://www.hnt.nl/voorstellingen/950/Het_Nationale_Theater/Othello/.

353 He was even given a dance number to the “Cannikin Clink" song, at start the party scene - a wonderful embodiment of this. Othello, A2.S3. 86 Chapter 9: Performances

Four in

These particular examples of Iago are included for analysis here, as each was inIluential in shaping my view of the character for performance, through what I will call ‘creative appropriation’.354 My reading of these Iilms seeks to highlight relevant material for the current argument, also by way of examining similarities and differences between creative choices concerning the character. These Iagos can be divided into two categories; Men and Gentlemen. This classiIication refers in some way to station and class, and I will explore two performances from each. All but one adopt the historical period setting of the play (McKellen’s Iago exists within a kind of postcolonial, military world) and it is interesting to note the aesthetics and charm of each of these depictions within the productions. All four performances are brought to the screen by seasoned performers of the English stage, each displaying great range and versatility, with equal command of comedy and drama (though Hoskins and McInnerny are arguably more comic actors). Correspondingly, their Iagos are all master performers and perhaps our recognition of this mastery comes in response to an aptitude in both forms. What each of them bring to the role, using their own actor personas, was a source of information and inspiration for playing Iago. Any handlings of Iago’s motivation - including the possibility of reading him as a psychopath - are closely considered. It is also interesting to note the ways in which each Iago relates to his audience (taking the medium into consideration) and the degree of intimacy generated. Re-watching the performances for this paper, certainly highlighted the dialectic of intimacy and distance we Iind in Iago, from both the player and audience point of view. In the case of more attractive Iagos, this somehow seems to give more weight to the cautionary tale that evil can be lurking, anywhere; that there are powerful performers among us, who are imposters, ready to snatch our happiness from us. I argue that watching the Iigure and the kindness and honesty he so convincingly executes, we can be almost as successfully duped as the players are (though his Iinal moments do present a challenge in this regard). Pro- attitudes may be induced by the performer - and even their command of Shakespeare - and made especially tangible, with the application of craft. The bottom line is that good actors

354 Using another interpretation to inform ones own playing of a line or moment or characteristic. 87 make good Iagos, because Iago needs to be one. Actors such as these are truly able to captivate, through theatricality, leaving us wondering what (if any) were his truthful moments?

Hoskins - Loveable Rogues (see Figure 5).

Aesthetics/impressions Hoskins Iago is a small balding ball of fur, with a ruff collar that resembles a cone for dogs to stop them biting themselves. Despite a certain terseness, there is also something warm and endearing about his portrayal. He is funny too, playing the clown from the very opening dialogue (delivering funny voices with “already chose my ofIicer” in A1.S1.L18). His cheeky giggle - constantly peppered throughout the performance - and reassuring smile, is powerfully juxtaposed with icy Ilashes of malevolence (a good example is his “I am not what I am”, A1.S1.L67).

Emotions When the giggles then grow to laughter, it suggests that everything he does is for his own amusement; the hilarity of his plan becomes disproportionate and disturbing (particularly at his “monstrous birth” line, A1.S3.L341) with the only identiIiable emotion being contempt for all those around him and joy in their destruction.

Acting Hoskins maintains a sense of dread beneath every one of his many faces. Sharp transitions between them also assist in highlighting his manipulations. He displays great sensitivity with Rodders, listening intently and providing support on a very close personal level. The same can be said of his dealings with Desdemona (he has one particular moment of tenderness, when he playfully imitates the trumpets summoning her to dinner,355 and reassuring her after Othello has struck her (he would be good with children this Iago). He beautifully plays the wide-eyed and worried servant when he needs to; in Act 3 Scene 3 (the “indeed” scene) he is like a wounded pup, as he understatedly plants the seed in this crucial scene.

355 Othello, A4.S3. 88 Audience interaction Hoskins does not address the camera in his soliloquies and this has repercussions. The extent to which he then talks to himself, gives his plotting a villainous energy. This also creates a slight disconnect from the audience, as it is the director who is letting us in on his workings and not the character. The way he is constantly entertaining himself with his own devious ideas, further encourages a perception of madness. Iago’s “great a Ily as Cassio”356 speech is delivered at a whisper and is so conspiratorial and calculating, that we almost lean in to be a part of it. Indeed, much of Iago’s dialogue is delivered at this whisper pitch. He captures our attention in this secretive, over the shoulder fashion.

Ensemble interaction At the harbour, this cute gruff goat is forgivable in his sexism, and is much loved by all. He plays his role here, recites his alehouse quips, seamlessly and with a subtle weariness that suggests he is well practiced. This scene is actually a good compass for Iago’s position and reception within a production (is he charming or offensive? Is he loved as a form of insider or rebuked as an outsider?). The “Her eye must be fed”357 speech is layered with sounds of the ominous storm outside, at a volume that rises above Iago’s own hushed tones, creating a hypnotic effect that soothes and rallies Rodders, no matter how absurd the argument. Generally, he has the status and the power, with little required of exercising it (look at the casual ease in his delivery, with his mock departure-reentrance in A1.S3). He seems fairly indifferent to Emilia (nothing overly dysfunctional here) and is a playful softy when he goes for the handkerchief, showering her with soft kisses until she gives in. His line to Othello, “I am your own forever”358 is not so loaded and the bond between Othello and Iago, is not signiIicantly pronounced here. Hoskins’ constant cool is sharply contrasted with Hopkins’ Othello’s decent into madness, violence and emotion. Iago jumps, with hands in the air and audible cheers as Othello collapses in the grips of seizure. He then delivers “all guiltless meet reproach”359 to Othello’s face, as if he were teasing and taunting a dying animal. Hopkins’ vulnerability in the

356 Ibid., A1.S1.L169.

357 Ibid., A1.S1.

358 Ibid., A3.S3.L488.

359 Ibid., A4.S1.L38. 89 face of Hoskins’ hollow calm and sinister suggestion, does seem cruel and viscous (especially when he suggests that Othello strangle Desdemona360).

Final moments Captured and beaten, Iago beams. It is clearly a victory, despite his capture. He is ecstatic as he utters his last words, laughing through the charges, and proud of his work. He is still laughing as Othello dies, and this level of childish excitement may be read as psychopathic.

Globe Othello - The Hypnotic Train Wreck (see Figure 6).

Aesthetics/impressions McKinnerny, usually type-cast as the ‘toff’, is here begrimed, cynical and unhinged… a mess, on the edges of breakdown. He is a dark, frightening Iigure, full of menace and authority. His Iago is however also funny and charming, in his own way. There are shared traits between Hoskins and McInnerny; both are ‘mens’ men’, though McInnerny is far more outwardly intimidating. Both are balding and in need of a bath, but this is a man you would not mess with, in addition to not trusting. Neither Iigures are attractive (outwardly) as such, but both are engaging and charming. These are the working-class soldiers, as compared to Branagh and McKellen, who are more the gentlemen soldiers. Attraction here, is in Iago’s strength, wit and humour - his abilities.

Emotions There is feeling in this Iago; his monologues are delivered with a great deal of emotion and suffering, mostly in anger. He is haunted by this and this is evident in the short moments of discomfort that we witness. In these times he seems aware of the gravity of his actions and how horrible they are, but has no choice. There is some laughter and celebration here also, suggesting mental instability (different as it may be to Hoskins’ brand of laughter). He outwardly hates on Othello’s moments of romance and there is a deranged energy to Iago that runs through the entire show, also due to the physical needs of performing in this space.

360 Ibid., A4.S1. 90 Acting This performance was tailored for the stage, and for Globe audiences. There is something ‘authentic’ in a Shakespearean sense, about seeing the play in this context. It brings into focus; theatrics, spectacle, comedy and tragedy, open-air space, big choices (in direction and performing) and holding audience attention (many standing, for the entirety of the show, through distraction such as aircraft). The use of this extensive space for grand sweeping gestures and actions, decisively opens up the action. Iago’s juggling act can be exploited here for all its theatricality. The presence of the clown in this performance is immediate, clearly marking the territory and giving agency to the comedy. In an interview, the director commented speciIically on the need for comedy in Othello, and how his production called on ‘low’ forms in order to do this. Rough and ready, Iago is drunk and emotional during his rendition of the “King Steven” song.361 He cant sing a note and it is all for comic effect. The Iight scenes too are comic, with a soundtrack, slow-motion stylised swording and cute family gags. When Cassio hails Iago as “honest”,362 there is an eruption of laughter from the live audience, as the keen irony is wonderfully delivered. The persuasiveness of the character is given strong focus, situationally adopting roles and characters and McInnerny shows great range. His storytelling as he reports Cassio’s lecherous sleep talking to Othello in Act 3 Scene 3, expertly infects the vulnerable Othello. The handkerchief too, is so subtly but at the same time, so melodramatically dropped into conversation. We watch and enjoy Iago playing the villain and the audience responses testify to this. Physically, his Iago is frequently bowing, one of many gestures of a subservient and retreating demeanour that he employs for show. He also continually adopts an ‘at-ease’ position, when around the general. This Iago is extremely aware of space; when to move in and when to back off. He is physically in a constant state of proxemic attack and retreat with his targets (he provides Othello for example, with some distance before dropping his “witchcraft”363 insinuation). Iago is often on the outskirts of the action (at the arrival of Cassio for example in A2.S1), often not quite permitted entrance. But this is the perfect position to get all he needs, and for watching events unfold.

361Ibid., A2.S3.

362 Ibid., A2.S3.L244.

363 Othello, A3.S3.L216. 91 Audience interaction This production presents us with a traditional villain with very strong ties with the audience, which the space facilitates to some degree. In the Globe, Iago’s asides are delivered with the same vocal force as regular dialogue. This gives his inner voice a stronger presence - there is no concealment or apology. The Iilm also captures the audience (they are the backdrop for much of the action) and with their reactions and despite the cavernous space, there is a kind of magical intimacy possible in this theatre. His Iirst monologue is open and warm, and he slips into conversation with us so easily that we respond in kind. He works out his plan with us, we are a springboard for his ideas and are present for their birth.

Ensemble interaction McInnerny has a monumentally idiotic Roderigo to play opposite, who is completely under Iago’s spell. Iago’s seeming investment in the very young and naive Rodders, is quite touching at times, complimented by the comic tone of the scenes (even Rodders’ death is handled in this way). “Put money in thy purse”364 is hysterical (comedy is used in this scene within both the McInnerny and Branagh’s performances, though not so much in the others) and gets laughs till the very last repetition of the phrase. Iago is made more relatable and accessible, through the characterisation of Cassio. The lieutenant is here played with much pomp and handsome camp, making Iago’s hatred of him somehow more justiIied, in the class dynamic created between them. Iago’s jokes (some cuts to the text here during A2.S1) at the harbour, don't go down so well; they isolate him, rather than endear him, which is an interesting choice. Iago behaves in a cruel fashion towards Emilia, revealing a physically volatile and dysfunctional relationship, providing the audience with more explanation for his unstable state. He engages in a very sinister wooing for the handkerchief and is stiff in his rejection of Emilia’s attempt at a kiss. This Iago is not such a soft touch with Desdemona either. There is, in contrast to Hoskins, nothing celebratory about his “work on, my medicine”365 amongst Othello’s Iit; it is cold and foreboding.

364 Ibid., A1.S3.

365 Ibid., A4.S1.L35. 92 Final moments One thing made powerfully clear by this production is how Iago’s power grows, while Othello’s diminishes. Again, a sense of victory in defeat accompanies his conclusion. Again, there is some laughter from Iago after his “never speak word”366 line, as he is dragged off the stage.

Parker Othello - Our Golden Boy (see Figure 7).

Aesthetics/impressions Branagh Iago is both handsome and well spoken. At time he looks like a cowboy knight in his tight-Iitting outIit (the tone of the leather is a somewhat lighter and more earthier colour, than the black of the last two portraits). Iago has all Branagh’s charm, which is here used for evil, translating his likability into a dramatically engaging characterisation of the villain.

Emotions Branagh Iago is shown to be spying on the ‘crowning’ of Cassio (with Rodders at his side, in A1.S1) and he is clearly wounded by this. The production therefore offers some insight into Iago’s motivation, as his response feels genuine (it is not played for Rodders’ sake). The line “Serve my turn upon him”367 too, is sincere in its very personal and internal mode of delivery. Though emotional, there is also resolve and calm here. “I hate the Moor”368 is heartfelt and accompanied by a dramatic soundtrack, along with some very up-close shooting; the gravity and feeling is right in our faces. The same force accompanies “twixt my sheets he’s done my ofIice”,369 suggesting that he is hurting and ashamed, pushed to evil thoughts and deeds. The plan seems to already be in place, he merely conIirms it for us in his soliloquies. On “virtue into pitch”,370 he reaches into to the embers of a Iire and burns himself, in some sadistic moment of self harm. He then covers the camera on “enmesh them all”,371

366 Ibid., A5.S2.L317.

367 Othello, A1.S1.L44.

368 Ibid., A1.S3.L232.

369 Ibid., A1.S3.L233.

370 Ibid., A2.S3.L269.

371 ibid., A2.S3.L271. 93 suggesting that perhaps there are things still unknown about him. His wide-eyed delivery of the “green eyed monster”372 speech, reads as a confession or show of who he really is, ironically not received by the players.

Acting There is music in Branagh’s delivery of the language which is dynamic, equally in form and meaning. The intimacy of “Put money in thy purse” here resembles a counselling session or pep talk, soothing and sensical. It is so catchy in its appeal, he even has Rodders repeating it. This is the magic Iago has. The next speech to Rodders is delivered under a wagon, on which live sex is occurring above. It lends the scene a sexuality, which Iago uses at one point, by putting his hand down Rodders’ pants to make a point. He is a creature of his environment and has likely engineered the speech to occur in this location. After the Iight, he protests Othello’s rejection of Cassio’s with performed-hurt, with another layer of hiding this hurt, which is not actually there. The “King Steven”373 song is sung by an angelically voiced Iago, as a melancholic ballad that sends everyone into peaceful shut down - the perfect stage for his next scene. Iago hovers unnoticed behind Cassio, as he breaks down. He waits and looks around before he engages in the scene, making his theatricality visible to the audience (a similar effect to Hoskins’ quick transitions). This Iago is even more of a watcher, and there is a creepiness that suits the nature of his motivation. He hams up the offence and hurt as he watches Othello in his “Othello's occupation’s gone”374 speech. The near drowning of Iago that follows is almost comic at one moment. Like McInnerny, there is proxemic attack and retreat in the presentation of the role, but in another form; in his close monitoring of the subject and his fast reactions in accord with this (e.g. brashly or gently or apologetically). Cassio’s set-up scene is ideal for watching Iago soar. Close-ups allow us to watch the wheels turn (“have you not hurt your head”375) and “encave yourself"376 literally involves putting Othello in a cage, a lovely scenographic metaphor. In this way, he is an orchestrator; his timing is perfect with the entrances of characters and there is a tactical power to this.

372 Ibid., A3.S4.L170.

373 Ibid., A2.S3.

374 Ibid., A3.S3.L367.

375 Ibid., A4.S1.L49.

376 Ibid., A4.S1.L71. 94

Audience interaction Big budget cinematography and big cuts to text, make the economy with which everything that is achieved by Iago, all the more alarming. It also generates intimacy with Iago. The “well tuned now”377 aside is a voice over accompanying an image of the smiling and onlooking (of Othello’s love and success) Iago, as a cinematic convention allowing us access to the character’s consciousness. This moment is beautifully demonstrative of Iago as a performer, an onlooker and as insider/outsider. He regularly communicates directly to camera and there is a tired, scornful disposition that often accompanies his commentary as he plays the villain. There is also an intelligence to his soliloquies, so intelligently delivery, that we read him as being both ahead of the game and the others.

Ensemble interaction Symbolically, Branagh Iago uses a chess board within the production to visually demonstrate his approach to relationships.378 He is deIinitely lacking in some of the outward Ilair of others around him, but this gives him a neutrality, with which he can hide behind. He is of slightly higher station and less of an outsider here (he is more equal with Cassio for example). Othello is likely as cool and attractive as he will ever be for a contemporary audience (a young Laurence Fishburn) and ties of brotherhood are strong between the two Iigures in this production. This Iago is masculine, but as with Hoskins, has moments of softness particularly with Rodders and Desdemona. There is appeal in his seemingly patient solider approach, and he always leaves people feeling better than when he found them. “All things shall be well”,379 is delivered with a kiss to Desdemona, which even impresses Emilia. However, he does eventually take the same Emilia hostage, before stabbing her in the back. His lazy mocking of his wife is disconcerting, as is the sadistic aphrodisiac the handkerchief becomes, once he obtains it. When Othello’s Iit in full swing, Iago sits beside him, his body moving with Fishburn’s convulsions, brutally grabbing his face and delivering the “work on, my medicine”380 line. After the famous vow he takes to assist the General in his dark business, there is an embrace. Iago

377 Othello, A2.S1.L185.

378 A motif also used in the Hoskins production, as the Iloor of the setting resembles a chess board.

379 Othello, A4.S2.L177.

380 Ibid., A4.S1.L35. 95 closes his eyes and turns away from us, as though this is what he has really wanted all along (“now art thou my lieutenant”381).

Final moments Having ‘perplexed’ Othello with jealousy, there is no maniacal laughter, only a slow crawl up onto the bed of corpses. He rests then, at their feet, and gives us one Iinal look - as if to say ‘behold my creation’, as the light of the window is allowed into the room.

McKellen - Intimacy (see Figure 8).

Aesthetics/impressions The Iinal case study is our most contemporary Iago, housed within a 20th century setting. He is very British and very military, adding a distinct layer to the behaviour and relationships present (Iago’s obsessive compulsive attention to detail for one). Classic British emotional restraint perfectly serves Iago’s calm, logical deductions and suggestions (“imputation and strong circumstances”382 for example). He is frightening as well as charming. There is a sophistication, as with Branagh and that is why these last two Iagos are different to the Iirst; they are in a more gentlemanly disguise. He also has a habit of materialising out from behind a shadowy wall and so, like Branagh, he is a creeper.

Emotions The hate he feels appears to be crippling, like an ulcer. InIidelity seems to come merely as an excuse for this, using it to cover embarrassment at his show of emotion (stiff upper lip and all). This suppressed hatred also feeds, excites and even arouses him in a sadistic way. “Dull not device”383 is Iago, having the time of his life, in executing his plan. He seems Iixated on the love he sees Othello enjoying, as he talks about setting down the pegs,384 before passionately kissing Emilia. so like Branagh Iago, he is parasitic on Othello’s love. There is a grace to his “divinity of hell”385 speech, a regal explanation of how everything is for show.

381 Ibid., A3.S3.L487.

382 Ibid. A3.S3.L416.

383 Othello, A2.S3.L291.

384 Ibid., A2.S1.L186.

385 Ibid., A2.S3. 96 Acting This is theatre, creatively Iilmed (as with the Hoskins production, to a lesser degree) and sometimes providing close ups…though we never get quite as close as we get to Branagh. Every moment of McKellen’s performance is wholly expressive and readable and he commands absolute attention because of this. Iago’s ownership of the space is pronounced, in his shadow-walking and habitation of all nooks and crannies of the set and it is his dark bottomless eyes that somehow shine through it all. He is a humble variety of dashing in his military outIit, with English panache. “I am not what I am”386 is delivered through a haze of sulphuric cigarette smoke. There is a different and altogether scary Iago at Brabantio’s door. This is role play, but not for laughs; we see here the military execution of an action - a plan. It is easy to get lost in McKellen’s fascinating face, watching in wonder about what is underneath as he performs. The persuasion is cast iron and he is highly economical in its delivery. McKellen creates meaning with the lines, lulling us all into his speech. It is also the ease with which the lines are delivered - the effortless sense and music. When Desdemona requests a ‘praise’ at the harbour, he ponders, rather theatrically, for a moment (“I am about it”387) and then he’s off…or up, standing on an upturned piece of luggage, delivering a show to the company, complete with physical gags that has them splitting sides. He delivers the punch line, and then with a subtle blazing look beneath his lids, he shoots us a look as if to say ‘only you (the audience) really know how I feel about these people’. He is also saying ‘look at my tricks and how well I do this job’. He has a power of hypnosis, his visage is like a swinging clock-face or a turning swirl (watching his eyes for example, and the sincerity of his confession regarding the “poisonous mineral”388 that consumes him). It is so richly ironic that Iago comes off as the good soldier and good friend, by the end of the party scene and its fallout.

Audience interaction There is a sense of trust in his communication with us when, like Branagh, he delivers his soliloquies straight down the barrel. This communication (even in the quickest of glances to the camera) acts as a form of self promotion for Iago; it makes fools of the others - at their being duped. In this way, there is an air of self-gratiIication about his interactions with us. They are intimate, but decadent in Iago’s hatred and enjoyment of this. He is a nasty creature,

386 Ibid., A1.S1.L.65.

387 Ibid., A2.S1.L131.

388 Ibid., A2.S1.L222. 97 but also a deliciously frightening one - cheeky and charming in his perversity. His inclusion of us appears to be the priority, as he invites us to watch in an almost childlike, fun way.

Ensemble interaction Iago is like the nip of spirits he pours and passes around at the harbour - warming. He is witty and utterly distracting, which is just what Desdemona needs. He knows how to engage all members of the audience (on and off stage) and there is no suggestion of him being an outsider here. He leads the chorus for the drinking songs at the party and even becomes the hostess, with a towel draped over his shoulder. This is the place he is accustomed to, indeed it is the perfect place for him; as the showman, as if it were a duty of his rank. When Rodders writhes around on the Iloor like an infant, Iago dives in and shows a tough love that is utterly convincing and persuasive. Like a parent, he calms Rodders by stroking his hair and massaging his shoulders. He is very tactile, this Iago. He likes to get in, he is not afraid to do so and appears to enjoy it even. This deepens his connections, whilst also being interesting to watch as it creates intimacy. Fixing Rodder’s sash at one point (as he relays instructions) is exactly the kind of touch that makes everyone think that he cares. He wins people this way, and this is all the more frightening. He also has speeches, which are demonic in their Ilashes of anger and sadism, though by the end of each scene he has returned to a comforting state, revealing a pattern within his performances. It is sad, when Rodders - who actually momentarily sees Iago for what he is and challenges him - goes straight under the cloud of deception once again, after such little praise from Iago. Cassio’s “The lieutenant is to be saved before the ancient”389 comment, creates a real barrier between the characters in this production. In comforting Cassio, Iago moves from stern parent, to brother, tacking between emotions (as he does with Rodders) en route to his objective. It is especially ironic when he puts a blanket over Cassio, and delivers the next venomous monologue beside him as he sleeps. Having won the handkerchief, he gives Emilia an aggressive kiss and ravaging her face, before sending her packing, bewildered and used (almost as if he prefers conversation with us). In Othello’s major rage scene, there is some strangling and rather comic running about involved. Iago is perhaps generating a theatrical scene here, picking up a chair at one point to tame the beast… before the beast gets him up against a pole. This is ‘hammy’ hurt-acting at its

389 Othello, A2.S3.L73. 98 best. McKellen reminds us that there is much fun to be had in these tears and tantrums (see Figures 26 & 27 for some of my tantrums of my own). Like Hoskins, he is victorious with arms raised in controlled celebration, at the collapse of Othello. He then sits the General down, like a boxer in the ring, before dusting him off and preparing him like a lamb for slaughter. Iago ironically has a handkerchief for Desdemona, and cradles her like a child in his arms, kissing her neck and hair, as she ironically pardons the rogue responsible. He then prays with Desdemona at the alter, just as he did with Othello…and we know its all for show. He is both the saviour and enemy of them all.

Final moments With “I bleed, sir, but not killed”,390 Iago is indeed like the undead. His delivery of “what you know, you know”391 is harrowing in its lack of explanation. It is a pure villainous moment and there is victory in his silence and resistance, till the very end. The concluding image uses a Iinal spotlight on Iago beholding his work - with no look to us - along side the dead on the bed.

390 Ibid., A5.S2.L301.

391 Ibid., A5.S2.L16. 99 Chapter 10: Actor research: preparation informing my performance (see Figures 9 - 16).

It is interesting that ‘actor research’ for me, in tackling such a canonised character, as much concerned the traditions involved in the playing of the character, as my own views on who is presented in the text. I was determined to make the most of this resource, which felt like a blessing, as this is not something usually available for other roles. I will here try to focus on recognising such moments of inspiration (or thievery) that align with the theatrical approach to Iago, recalling the preparation during actor research, which primarily involved perceiving Iago as actor/entertainer. The material I utilised in this phase of research mostly consisted of study-aids, offering various titbits of information, making accessible the immense surface of literature on the play, its characters and its themes.392 Of value here, is what and how this material translated into my performance, and also for my current reading.

Illuminating Findings

One source brought to my attention the popular theory that Iago’s true, underlying motive for persecuting Othello is his homosexual love for the General. He certainly seems to take great pleasure in preventing Othello from enjoying marital happiness and expresses his love for Othello frequently and effusively. Orson Welles is cited was an example of this, exploiting the homoerotic undertones of the play by having Iago woo Othello from Desdemona. There was also a useful comment about Iago in performance here; that he “seems almost to wink at the audience as he revels in his own skill”.393

Tying in with this, another site referred to American literary critic Harold Bloom, who argues that Iago is an artist of evil; that there is a sense of craftsmanship, an appreciation for the elegance or cleverness of each step in his scheme, as much as its Iinal result (the suffering of his chosen targets). Each time Iago performs a step, he muses on it and tell us how fabulous

392 A note on research and internet sources; I acknowledge that some of this particular material may be academically questionable, in terms of legitimacy. It is given a voice here, as these sources were inIluential in shaping my views in Iago from an actor perspective. Also, parts of this information were extremely useful, relevant and practically available throughout.

393 Sparknotes. http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/othello/character/iago/. 100 he is. Iago may accordingly challenge preconceptions of evil as being brutal and insensitive, or at least disconnected from those it hurts. Iago is able to hurt Othello because he understands him so well, whilst growing even closer to him as his plot progresses. Connecting with idea of the enemy within, Iago manipulates Othello “so expertly that at times it seems he is actually inside Othello's head”.394

In performance terms, the audio-book genre proved valuable, mostly in terms of the perceivable similarities and differences in the delivery of Iago amongst the four very different productions I listened to. Certainly there were some performative insights on offer here,395 though more so in the available performances I was able to watch. This included those previously mentioned, as well as Orson Welles’ production,396 the Lawrence Olivier version and an RSC staging with a black Iago and Othello.

In the window of time we have with Iago, he really is thriving - it is prime time for life and fun. Sharing with us the joy of each new thing that goes his way, adds to his appeal. As a theatrical image for Iago’s time in the light, I thought of the arresting energy and theatricality of Hugh Jackman singing “Oh what a beautiful morning”, as Curly from Oklahoma! (see Figure 16).

I considered Iago a kind of hypnotist, engaged in psychological warfare. Could he then be empowered with a Rasputin-like ability to win people over and sway them in big-stake decisions? Rasputin was used as a stimulus, for a dark, hypnotic Iigure that is let in; a real- world case of someone adept at duping, in an extremely - almost other-worldly - capable way (see Figure 11).

394 Schmoop. https://www.shmoop.com/othello/iago.html.

395 An audio recording of a Lenny Henry in Othello was altogether fun, colourful and theatrical. The music and comedy used throughout was also extremely inspirational. A review described this Iago as “reptilian” and through the recording, the characterisation is clear and engaging. Continual sudden outbursts of emotion are also suggestive of a tormented split personality.

396 The Iago of this production was probably the most horrible of all. Regardless of all the creative licence allowed a villain, asking the question “would you trust this man?”, the answer would be a resounding no. 101 Cant you hear me knocking by The Rolling Stones, was a from of musical inspiration or stimulus. It was an anthem of sorts for my Iago - I used the song to create connection and energy with the role.397

A BBC documentary called Shakespeare Uncovered: David Harewood on Othello provided some performative perspectives, via the reIlections of an iconic UK Othello.398 The program describes Iago as empty, needy, destructive, with a profound contempt for other people. Also, in the way that all attachments within the play Ilip to Iago, “he's a force not a person”. A miserable specimen of humanity, there is something genetic in Iago that wants to mess with Othello, because he represents something which is good. Like a virus, he uses those he invades and knows where to burrow (a wonderful analogy). Harewood stresses the need for a convincing dynamic between Iago and the General. He also recognises just how successful Iago is and that this is precisely what makes him fascinating. One Iinal salient point of the program, is that “Shakespearean characters love talking, it is their world”. When Iago gives nothing in the end, he no longer exists.

The great nineteenth-century actor Edwin Booth apparently wrote about playing Iago; “To portray Iago properly you must seem to be what all the characters think, and say, you are, not what the spectators know you to be; try to win even them by your sincerity. Don't act the villain, don't look it, or speak it, (by scowling and growling, I mean), but think it all the time. Be genial, sometimes jovial, always gentlemanly. Quick in motion as in thought; lithe and sinuous as a snake”.399 This source makes sense with the discrepancy of information, opening up the scope for irony, but also with role-playing and the inner/outer world of Iago.

397 The raw rock sounds of the track and the luring quality of the lyrics were a sound Iit for my own characterisation. Can't you hear me knockin', ahh, are you safe asleep? Can't you hear me knockin', yeah, down the gas light street, now Can't you hear me knockin', yeah, throw me down the keys The Rolling Stones (1971). Sticky Fingers. Olympic, London

398 Shakespeare Uncovered: David Harewood on Othello, Directed by Nicola Stockley, https:// www.digitaltheatreplus.com/education/collections/bbc-studios/shakespeare-uncovered-david-harewood-on- othello.

399 Cliffs Notes. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/o/othello/character-analysis/iago. 102 A series of short documentaries were released by the National Theatre in 2013, examining the play and production across several issues/themes (see Figure 14).400 The Behind the Lines segment explores just how central the army can be to the play. This representation frames the action, believing that this is what may happen with a life spent devoted to killing and violence. The element of trust between men in the army, gives Iago a strong source of his power. Loyalty and the code of honour is also the source of Iago’s feelings of betrayal; that his seniority and length of service should matter.401 As far as the character of Iago was concerned in this translation, the focus was on his mediocrity; he has “boozed and smoked and drunk and whored his way through life and its all catching up with him”.402

The director of the Nagoya production I was involved in, had seen a performance of Othello in Sydney (Iirst opening in 2016) by the Bell Shakespeare Company - it was the inspiration for mounting his own project. I was able to study the programme booklet for this production and found some inspirational remarks.403 In it, writer Andy McLean states that the reason Othello still dazzles today, is that it is built upon what is seen and unseen. “The audience watches Iago construct the scaffold upon which to hang Othello. Then we watch Othello as he blindly, unwittingly, places his neck in the noose”. Ironically, the liar becomes the most reliable narrator, because only he can see what is really going on. He also says that “(t)he true survivors of Othello are not the remaining characters but the silent witness. You”. The discrepancy of information often used in situational comedy is here taken to a much darker place.

In an interview ,Wilson Milam, director of the 2007 production at The Globe, described Iago’s relationship with the audience. He likened this to the seductive playfulness of another, very different canonical character; “If you can do Frankfurter, you can do Iago”. Such engagement made possible via direct address to the audience, led me consider Iago as a kind of Master of Ceremonies for the show; much like the Iigure in Cabaret (of which Frankenfurter is perhaps a distant cousin), who is thrilled by the evening’s entertainment, while also playing in it. The director had an attraction to the ‘Pirate’ or ‘Wild-West’ type setting of the production

400 National Theatre. Othello: Behind the Lines National Theatre Discover. Published on Oct 5, 2013. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHsaO2IpTYg.

401 This also raises the issue of class in the army. Both these Iigures started at the bottom, but now Othello wants someone unlike him at his side. National Theatre Discover. Iago and Othello, op. cit.

402 National Theatre Discover. Behind the Lines, op. cit.

403 The booklet provides www.bellshakespeareblog.worldpress.com for future references. 103 in the 1500’s, where the mightiest takes all. This Iirmly resonated with me and the setting of our production, despite the temporal/spatial differences.

Of the same performance a reviewer described the “blend of comedy and melodrama. Tim Mclnnerny, playing Iago throws plenty of sideways glances and grins to the audience and even the fatal Iight between Cassio and Roderigo is assaulted for laughs”.404 I found the performance to be no less poignant for this and despite knowing little about the genre of Melodrama at the time, I considered it a way in to the possibilities of villainous theatricality. A number of melodramatic images of Iago I happened across, were also a good stimulus for adding a touch of this to my own performance (see Figures 9 & 10); it suggested a more traditional notion of the villain as a ‘type’ - someone who you might boo or throw things at (see images).

Iago in Melodrama and Melodrama in Iago

Carolyn Williams believes that “melodrama has been a dominant shaping force of modernity for over two hundred and Iifty years. We live, still, within its aesthetic regime in the twenty-Iirst century”.405 She offers a literal deIinition of the genre, which consist of a combination of music and drama; “an organised audio-visual Iiled, dialectically working back and forth between music and pictures, music and speech, movement and stasis, sound and silence”.406 The audience experiences “melodramatic rhythm as periods of suspenseful absorption pierced by intensiIied moments of shock, terror, or sentiment”.407 The highly theatrical nature of the genre is striking and the rhythm that Iago creates - a tragic rhythm - in the movement of scenes, may reveal the melodramatic possibilities for Othello. She

404 http://shakespeareantheatre/.suite101.com/article.cfm/othello_at_the_globe.

405 Though ignored (until the 1960’s) as ‘bad drama’, it is “now both widely acknowledged as an important dramatic genre, with its own coherent set of conventions, and also understood more broadly as a mode of apprehension, behaviour, and social action”. Williams in Flint, K. (2012). The Cambridge History Of Victorian Literature. Cambridge University Press, p.193.

406 Ibid.

407 Ibid., p.194. 104 also addresses the many things the term ‘melodramatic’ has come to mean since.408 Appearing the century after Shakespeare, the traces of inIluence are perhaps still evident, as are potential translations of Shakespeare into this style. It is melodrama that replaces tragedy, Williams tells us, in answer to new cultural and historical needs.

Williams also advises us, much like Donahue, that “(e)nsemble playing was an economic structure, but considered in aesthetic terms, it supports the sense that an entire world is being encapsulated, condensed, and abstracted in the representations of the play”.409 The central stock characters are described by Williams as; the virtuous suffering heroine; the hero so earnest and dutiful that he often seems naive; and the villain, who is the active force driving the plot. “Because melodrama so blatantly personiIies evil as a ‘given’, and as an individual Iigure, we can sense the fear that social corruption is systematic and ungraspable, incomprehensible and relentless”.410 She details the semiotic convention of ‘physiognomic legibility’ within melodrama; “the idea that the villain may be easily recognised - fosters the conIidence or hope that villainy might somehow be legible in real social situations”.411 This highlights the tension in Iago, between being and showing. Do actors have a greater licence to play with this in Iago? The more overt ‘black villain’ reportedly sported a brow furrowed with cork lines, a black wig and dark complexion. Whereas later (mid-18th century on) the ‘gentlemanly villain’ wore a top hat, frock coat, and fur-lined cape. What evil and the villain may have looked like at this time is fascinating, even within these two very different treatments from the same period.

One Iinal comment of Williams was signiIicant to the study; “Melodramatic audiences feel their separation from the representation; they always know what the characters, entangled in the toils of the plot, do not know, and yet they enjoy violating the boundary between audience and representation,

408 “(H)istrionic body language; radically inhibited or exaggerated expression; sudden revelations; highly compressed plots with improbable happy endings; elaborate spectacle and special effects; stock ensembles of character; almost always focused on the family; villains whose actions drive the plot; victimised women, around whom the plot turns; and blatant incitements to audience reaction - whether shock or sentiment, cheers, screams, hisses, or tears”. Ibid. p.195.

409 Ibid., p.203.

410 Ibid.

411 Ibid., p.204. It is also interesting that “(u)pper-class criminals were by and large unsympathetic, but melodrama often gloriIies a criminal hero of the working or middle class”. Ibid., p.201. 105 too, hissing and booing, screaming their warnings, as if the characters could hear them”.412 At the same time, she reminds us that “realism is always relative, developing unevenly across genres, as well as within genres”.413 Melodrama ‘seemed’ realistic to its audiences, at that time.

412 Flint, op. cit., p.209.

413 Ibid. p.217. 106 Chapter 11: My own performance

Tying research together in a reading and re

Approach

As an actor, I trained in Sydney at a school called The Ensemble Studios: School for Actors. It was a repertory-inspired collective, that taught much as the Actors Studio in New York had done from the 1950’s, predominantly through Stanislavsky and Meisner. This involves heavy levels of preparation, on all levels particularly the psychological. It is about making the text human and importantly, real. Depth and complexity were important and form was secondary (a tension here between this ‘real’ depth and theatricality). With this background and a ‘method’ approach to training and working, I was surprisingly unconcerned with proIiling the character. Rory Kinnear of the National Theatre production recalls the more proper approach; “As an actor, you have to know who that character was beforehand in order to understand how they’ve changed”,414 of which I prepared nothing. I was however very concerned with what I was ‘doing’, so aspects of ‘plotting’ actions (beat and scenic) and objectives was useful and certainly applied. Of The Royal Shakespeare Theatre’s 1999 production, Richard McCabe provides some useful insight. Describing how Iago dominates the Iirst three acts and then sits back as his plan comes to fruition; “It’s so well plotted. There’s not a wasted word”.415 I viewed Iago more as an opportunist than a plotter, but I agree that it is masterfully plotted and that every word may be utilised - thanks to Mr Shackspeare.416 But as far as rationalising this character as a human individual was concerned, I found the material given us by Iago to be wanting. I focused then on ‘doing’ and not ‘being’ - a primary lesson as far as the Ensemble Studios was concerned - yet I may have been neglectful of another very important part of the key methodology, concerning emotion and ‘motivational techniques’. I ignored proIiling and

414 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jul/28/rory-kinnear-antony-sher-richard-mccabe-iago-othello.

415 Ibid.

416 Another derivative of the author’s name. 107 also chose to empty the role of (genuine) emotion, glossing over motivation. I felt Iago was beyond this in a way; that this was not something fully able to be made sense of by the audience. Understandably, it was gratifying to later read Dachslarger’s proclamations. Any directors and actors that might perhaps agree with the rationale, may also express some reservation about having to work without clarity in this regard, or without at least having explored the possibilities of Iago’s motivations. Back to myself and the theatrical approach; I viewed every scene as stimulus material to play with on stage, providing opportunities for performing some one, some emotion, some interaction.

Production

The 2017 production I was involved in, was a big-budget community project in Nagoya, for a predominantly Japanese audience. The production set Othello in the near distant future, with business empire providing the dramatic backdrop (instead of a military one, though both are warring). The director’s focus was on the visceral and dark nature of the tale, set in a relatable, though abstractly presented world; a world of industry and suits, eventually played out on a stage of looming cloud in the round. Iago was to be sharp and desirable, but a monstrous creation of this world, of which the theatre was a part. The production was not politically loaded at all, so there was a neutrality, a certain de-politicisation of the script. Of primary importance was creating the intimacy of the domestic setting and personal nature of the crime.

I took some liberties in ‘showing’ the villain aesthetically (perhaps even melodramatically), as a sign to view this character as a device of the theatre and a maker of mischief. My own interest in the intrinsically theatrical and entertaining elements of performing this role, perhaps came out of my need to connect with a non-English speaking audience.417 I wished to accentuate the ride here as being equally as thrilling for Iago as it is for the audience; there is no speciIic intended end to Iago’s machinations, just the will to undo and the ability act in Academy Award winning style.418 Concerning likability, wanting Iago to be attractive made sense to me, because clearly he has some form of allure. The script

417 Subtitles, often with hilarious translations, were projected during the performance.

418 The promotional material for my performance made Iago’s motivations (namely, being passed over for promotion) a strong focus. Though not relevant at all for my portrayal, it helps apparently if the audience knows ‘why’. 108 consistently insists on his ‘honesty’, and everybody believes him the swell fellow he appears to be. As the previous sections make abundantly clear, another choice on offer in production concerns how Iago is received by others. It is interesting that the most human aspect of experience for this role, for me, came via ensemble - through interactions with the players. Intimacy was certainly a feathered nest for Iago, amongst community theatre in Japan. Remember, he is in an interesting position regarding this ensemble; needing them, in order to destroy them.

Interpretation

My own interpretation involved an Iago who was emotionally detached, unfeeling even. I was of the mind that we are never really sure what he is actually feeling or whether indeed he feels at all. It was therefore convenient for me to view him as being devoid of emotion, but highly gifted in pretending. I gave no particular emotional weight to any of the reasoning Iago offers in regards to his motivations, making only a minor show for the sake of excuses for the audience. As a result, colleagues had suggested that my own portrayal seemed ‘psychopathic’. Though I did not engage in any speciIic research in relation to this, considering the theatrical approach I have outlined, a modern psychopathic reading becomes not only possible but quite seductive. I envisioned him as rough around the edges, ‘common’ for the lack of a better word…perhaps ‘street’ is better. As for dialect, I found a dash of the cockney was in order for the required loveable cheek. I dressed him in black racoon rock-star eyes and silver earrings of considerable bulk.419 Naturally, this was all just window dressing, housing an otherwise blank canvas upon which to stage Iago’s performance.

Back to Isherwood’s review of Berkoff, one Iinds praise only for the undeniable showmanship within the piece; “Performing and acting are not the same thing, however; you could say that an actor uses his persona to reveal a character, while a performer uses a character to display his persona. Berkoff is more a performer than an actor”.420 Ultimately, I believe we actors manipulate Iigures to Iit us, as much as the other way round. Also, I believe all actors both act and perform. When watching back the recorded material of a

419 When I say “I”, I also mean the fairly compliant production designer, make-up ladies and I.

420 Isherwood, op. cit. 109 personal live performance, a certain disconnect is made possible. As opposed to seeing self, one is able to engage with the character as a separate entity (though still connected to ones own embodied experience in performance), which offers a new perspective - an audience view - on how the performance registered with the audience (as captured in a Iilm archive). It must be confessed that, as a performer, I have a habit of seeking to Iind (aesthetically at least) the rockstar in all my roles. 110 Re

Some observations on engaging with this footage, as is relevant to the study. Underlined text marks Iindings that align with the research performances.

On Iago’s personality ‣ Iago exhibits a consciousness of being watched (by us and them) and is in a perpetual state of performance to be read. There are more subtle performances, as well as grander, more emotional productions of this. ‣ Whilst watching the performance, there is a sensation that the play really showcases Iago’s winning combination of conIidence and luck, within the action. ‣ “Men should be what they seem” is one of Iago’s constant moments of honesty, amongst the guise. ‣ “I told him what I thought and what he himself found was apt and true” is yet another ironically true statement from Iago.

On Iago’s abilities ‣ Iago constantly strives to develop his knowledge, not just of people, but also of their weaknesses. ‣ The quotation “Hold her free” provides evidence of Iago’s ability to use reverse psychology on those he interacts with, in this case implying that Othello should worry, by telling him not to. This is a sign as to how Iago creates an enemy within Othello. ‣ Iago is known for his tendency to frequently play for laughs, even in the midst of the drama. His statement, “Not for your quiet, nor your good” highlights that he knows Othello will want information anyway. We see how Iago is able to draw responses out of Othello. ‣ The report Iago delivers after the Iight at the party, shines a spotlight on his ability to control a situation; as he incorporates details, covering all his constructed bases and manipulates facts to secure his desired outcome. ‣ “Let her live”, states Iago as he initially appears to be on Desdemona’s side, whilst knowing precisely how to build and phrase this performance. ‣ Iago undoubtedly has a knowledge of “dangerous conceits”, and is an encyclopaedia of human workings. ‣ In Othello's seizure scene, Iago acknowledges the laughter in response to the collapse, and uses it to unite them both. This scene also shows Iago’s opportunistic impulses, as Cassio arrives. Iago is in full control and at his best here.

On Iago’s physical presence ‣ Watching the way Iago so Iluidly and instinctively inhabits appropriate social space, within each of his scenes, highlights his gentle approach to Iinding his way in, and then once there, getting comfortable. A prime example of this is when he consoles Cassio after the party. ‣ Physically, Iago often bows to his seniors in rank. During Cassio’s “Goodnight honest Iago”, it is in full swing (see Figure 25). 111

On Iago’s role within the play ‣ Iago’s performance can be seen as shaping the action and generating the dynamics between the other players. ‣ Iago is typically found hovering on the edges of the action within the play. ‣ The exit of characters, before Iago engages with the audience, delineates a separation of worlds. There are interesting moments when other characters interrupt this, with their entrances. ‣ Iago’s check-ins with the audience, provide a continual understanding - one that develops. Then suddenly he is as silent to us, as he is to the others on stage. ‣ “Knavery’s plain face is never seen till used”; a line that encapsulates Iago’s role, and its theatrical concealment, within this play. ‣ In describing his “heavenly shows”, Iago schools us in how to play the devil. ‣ In all versions of the play, we become accustomed to the familiar image of Iago in Othello’s ear. Iago’s weapon of choice is a thought, a constructed fantasy, as an earful of poison (see Figure 21) ‣ There is a look Iago gives to the audience after the Lodovico scene, as if to say “look how easy all this is”. ‣ When Iago kneels by Desdemona and strokes her hair, he is at his most vulnerable. “Go in and weep not”; I recall how much I (and Iago) enjoyed playing the scene - Iago is everyone’s man in this play, however short lived it may be. There is a moment afterwards where he looks reIlective, and he takes a little of this, residually, into the beginning of the next Rodders scene. ‣ Rodder's anger is never a threat to Iago, because he is so easily persuaded back to the hand - to the contact. On the line “Give me thy hand Roderigo”, Iago embraces him and strokes circles on his bald head, before gently pushing him away to deliver the next task. Rodders arrives at just the right time, for Iago to Iind a way to kill Cassio - we ask, how long can Iago keep his hands clean? Though I certainly did not see Iago as homosexual, having discovered this interpretation in actor-research, I certainly injected some homo-eroticism into the moments I had with Rodders (see Figure 19). ‣ On “Fruits of whoring” in his penultimate scene, we see Iago working hard here, amongst an ugly mess. Though this scene was enjoyable for its pace and energy, I deIinitely would feel a slight shift in feelings from the audience. Rodders is brutally stabbed before their eyes and things get serious - Iago’s hands are Iinally sullied. When watching the video, I vividly recall laughing at the sheer perversity of the act, at how obscenely entertaining it was. Even through moments such as the slashing of Cassio’s leg, and brutal stabbing of poor idiot Roderigo, may we still feel pro-attitudes for Iago? We see in this scene, that Iago is more than just talk. He needs to ramp-up his game and he does so, having shared the thought process with us before he acts. It leads us to question whether the brutality of the act that follows impress us? 112 Closing Thoughts and Conclusions

“Iago’s “Nothing”, tears a gaping hole in the world. It makes absent things present, inducing you to see with intolerable clarity what is not there at all”.421 This is the kind of magic the character has. As ambiguity overlays the structures of Othello, it is an important larger issue to be recognised. Ambiguity is the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness.422 Clearly there is enough ambiguity within Othello, and the Iigure of Iago, to have provoked such a mass of consistent speculation. We are after all I suppose, examining a play that explores the theatricality of truth and deception. The present study has examined Iago, primarily as a performer - an actor. In his interactions with the audience, he reveals an ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ world, which also generates ambiguity i.e. what is actually Iago’s truth (is there a mask behind the mask, as Rand asks423)? And what about Iago’s end; the form of vanishing-act he springs at the play’s conclusion, with his lack of an answer regarding his motivations? “What you know, you know”,424 is all he offers us. The analogy of Iago being a puzzle, perfectly communicates the complexity of this study. It is in fact layered and ultimately unsolvable. Donahue’s structural analysis is helpful, as it illustrates a language of forces, functioning as a system within the play, which Iago is a part of. He is however an ambiguous creation, and by schematising the possible arrangement of functions within Othello, it is possible to see how he is so open to interpretation. This too, is another potential site for mystery and fascination. Equally important in Othello, is the theme of Irony. By way of deIinitions, Iago could be an application of irony on a number of levels.425 In terms of attraction, the intelligence and awareness required of seeing a different perspective (often regarding paradoxes) may be a somewhat privileged place to lurk from. Not every one gets irony, though it can be comic, which does make it more accessible. It is ideal for targeting someone who take themselves too

421 Eagleton, op. cit., p.91.

422 ‘(W)e can detect no ambiguity in this section of the Act’. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/

423 See Rand, op. cit.

424 Othello, A5.S2.L316.

425 1.The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signiIies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. e.g. ‘‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony’. 1.1. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result. e.g. “the irony is that I thought he could help me”. 1.2. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full signiIicance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/. 113 seriously…someone like Othello. Speaking of the comic, it has been argued that Iago in fact has many Iingers in the comic pie and we should remember what a sweet tasting pie it can be. A short dip into tragedy has also provided some very important links here, as Szondi informs us, “The divine irony that stood opposite the tragic hero in antiquity is replaced in the baroque by the irony of the villain”.426

Ambiguity and irony are potential sites for fascination, and have a relationship with the theatricality of the play and the character. The paper has also praised Iago as a monster of theatricality. “One of the primary functions of the opposed force is to moderate or hasten the pace of the action”.427 Theatrically, Iago (the opposed force) is the orchestrator of the action and on stage, appears much like a manager. His narrative function and soliloquies also contribute to this. Iago’s ‘theatricality’ concerns the number of theatrical responsibilities he is endowed with, which he employs as weapons of entertainment (in that they are designed to be ‘watched’), both by way of his construction and how this may be translated on stage. Again, Theatre Studies has been helpful in perceiving Iago’s action as a collection of interwoven narratives, between himself and his various pieces. As he opportunistically and seamlessly places them in the perfect position for fate or luck to take them to hell, he does so in a strikingly unapologetic way, as far as we are concerned. Perhaps this embracing of the villain, is to the delight of both audience and actor alike.

Surely a major determining factor in all this, is the audience. Dachslarger tells us, “no reason would do, no reason will serve to account for this sort of discontented creature and that none is necessary. Iago plays the villain. And what you know, you know”.428 Niklas Luhman (in summarising developments in sociology and interpersonal communication, for implicit self-presentation) concluded that; “All action (‘action’ here in the broadest sense of the word) in the presence of others is also communication…(it) gives an indication of who the person conducting the action actually is”.429 Since this is what we know, what exactly do Iago’s actions tell us about him? This reading believes Iago’s actions are purely performative; he is the sign of a performer, performed by another.

426 Szondi, op. cit., p.72.

427 Donahue, op. cit., p.36.

428 Dachslarger, op. cit., p.10.

429 PIister, op. cit., p.191. 114

Modes of engagement and corresponding translations of Iago are all vastly contingent on subjectivity - this is the beauty of the Iigure and certainly one of his wild-card appeals. A productions’ designs for the story too, will always form a unique standpoint, achieved through a process of collaboration. I recall, at some point, hearing about Rossini’s 19th century opera Otello, which was often played with an alternate happy ending. Theatre has a tradition of playing with text and character in performance and as we have seen, this forms a site of many tensions. However, diverse branches of the Academy continue to bridge the gap in talking about this at leased, providing structures with which we may dramaturgically dissect any manner of theatrical entity. Play him as attractive or not, he contains a wealth of substance to be explored and played with, via Shakespeare’s play Othello. Surely the aforementioned Dutch production provides an avid example of this.

Could we also approach Iago, not by seeking to resolve the questions and the puzzle, but instead making use of them? Following Dachslarger’s lead, I pose the question; if the key to what brings us back to Iago is in his mystery, why seek to solve the puzzle or ignore it altogether? Having posed this question however, how can we present Iago in production without making any of the seemingly important choices? I then posit a view; essentially a translation of this riddle which resonates with a degree of meaning as a reading, which correspondingly may be applicable to my own performance. Actor Anthony Sher, performing as Iago at the Swan theatre in 2004, said; “Words such as “evil” and “villain”, they don’t mean much to me as an actor. They seem to hark back to a time when we knew nothing about psychology, and I’m far more interested in thinking about those people as damaged in some way that leads to their actions. In Richard III’s case, it’s easy to see: he’s a disabled man who has been severely mocked and humiliated by his disability. He tells us that in his opening speech. With Iago it’s subtler. He doesn’t explain himself, not even at the end. I’m not sure he can. The man’s a psychopath”.430

Sam Gold (director of the 2016 New York Theatre Workshop production, with Daniel Craig as Iago) was interviewed by Wayne Lawson for Vanity Fair. He said;

430 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jul/28/rory-kinnear-antony-sher-richard-mccabe-iago-othello 115 “I’m very excited by the way Shakespeare uses direct address, the way it includes the audience, the way the audience is always implicated. I wanted to make a space that would put the audience inside the world that the actors were living in. The lighting lights the actors and the audience, in a way that makes the audience feel a part of the show”.431

As well as charting some of Iago’s villainous history, Sher makes the connection between a lack of answers and psychopathy. Similarly, my reading of Iago Iinds him to be an actor psychopath…in a suit and green tie. Iago is an embodiment of evil, a psychopathic human and a conscious performer, which creates an effectively dynamic theatrical representation. As worrying (and for some, predictable) as this may be, evil and psychopaths seem to be a strong site of celebration, in current popular culture.432 Rockstar psychopaths are in high demand on our screens, as can be seen in the case Dexter and Hannibal. Rafter speaks of ‘psychopathic intrusions’, where it is not just the case that the psychopath kills people and sows disorder, “The psychopath is the disorder, the destroyer of predictability in the ordinary world”.433 It becomes easy both to agree with Morrison’s horror at the fascination evil holds for us, but simultaneously be drawn-in by the psychopathic tractor beam of Iago and his Badfella buddies.

I argue that pro-attitudes for Iago may also be strengthened across layers of meaning, especially in performance. By having Iago solicit the audience, they become closest to the worst person (by implication), making it more overwhelming at the end because they didn't stop it. Kinnear made a wonderful statement about how “people have jumped onstage to stop Iago, wrestled him to the ground. One actor in the 19th century was killed in the part, shot by an audience member. I’m glad that didn’t happen. Maybe I just wasn’t good enough”.434 I too am happy to have not been shot, and connect with this actor’s desire to arouse a response in the audience. In addition to borrowing some of McKellen Iago’s brand of evil, I also lent his approach to action in generating ‘intimacy, or a strong sense of connection with each of the other players. I did this in the hope that it would in turn infect the relationship I had with the

431 https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/12/daniel-craig-david-oyelowo-othello-shakespeare-photos

432 It also feels as though this comes at a time of heightened awareness of ‘stalkers’ amongst us.

433 Rafter, op. cit., p.352.

434 Rafter, op. cit., p.352. 116 audience (what the method would call a ‘supplementary action’). As a play, Othello is very manipulative. Sam Gold (director of the N.Y.T.W. production) tells us how; “You fall in love with Iago, and you feel on his side. He talks to you in direct address and on the side, and you fall in love with him. Then he starts doing terrible things, and you feel guilty that you liked him so much. The rug gets pulled out from under you. I was trying to make a context for the play—and with the space—where Iirst you feel implicated and then you feel the rug pulled out from under you” (see Figure 29 for Craig Iago).435

Dramatic tension can be added to Iago, by fuelling a sense of mystery about the Iigure, which allows for a more active experience on the part of the audience. Dachslarger’s admiration for Shakespeare in what he created in Iago (and how) also reIlects my own, in his statement; “Iago is a supremely evil dramatic character and a realistic one because Shakespeare knew, consciously or unconsciously, that to give his audience any deIinite reason for Iago’s behaviour would have turned him into another typical, expected villain”.436 Though we may perceive Iago’s centre as being vacant - as void - the one thing that Iills it, is the audience. His unique involvement with the audience as a construct, also reinforces the Iirm focus of our attention and fascination.

Each of my performance analyses devoted a section to Iago’s Iinal moments (see Figure 22 for an image of my own). Sher of The Swan Theatre performance made a very apt observation on his Iago; “At the last moment, being led off by guards, I turned around to look at the dead bodies with as neutral expression as possible. I was aiming for ambiguity, to leave it up to the audience. Some saw satisfaction. Some saw remorse. Iago’s an open book”.437 The analogy of the riddle has been used to stress Iago’s unrelenting creative elasticity. Daniel Rosenthal said “I am tempted to paraphrase Enobarbus describing Cleopatra: with a role as

435 https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/12/daniel-craig-david-oyelowo-othello-shakespeare-photos.

436 Dachslarger, op. cit., p.9.

437 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jul/28/rory-kinnear-antony-sher-richard-mccabe-iago-othello. 117 great as Iago, ‘Age cannot wither him, nor casting stale his inIinite variety’”.438 Though Iago would perhaps Iind the phrasing a little lame, he would be well pleased with the sentiment.

438 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2011/oct/14/how-old-is-shakespeare-iago. 118 References

Abel, L. (2003). Tragedy and Metatheatre. New York: Holmes & Meier. Dachslarger, Earl L. (1976). The Villainy of Iago: “What you know, you know”. CEA Critic, Vol 38, No.3, March. pp.4-10. Davis, T. C, and Postlewait, T. (2003). Theatricality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Delgado, M. (2003). Calixto Bieito: 'Reimagining the Text for the Age in which it is being Staged' - An Interview. Contemporary Theatre Review, Vol.13 (3). pp. 59-66. Donahue, T. J. (1993). Structures Of Meaning. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Eagleton, T. (2011). On Evil. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Evreinoff, N. (1927). The Theatre in Life, ed. Nazaroff, A. (translator), London: George E. Harrap. Feral, J. and Bermingham, R. P. (2002). "Theatricality: The SpeciIicity Of Theatrical Language". Substance 31(2/3), Issue 98/99. pp. 94-108. Flint, K. (2012). The Cambridge History Of Victorian Literature. Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, A. (2001). Othello, the Baroque, and Relies Mentalities. Really Modern Literary Studies, 7.2 (Sept). pp.1-29. Greenblatt, S. (2004) Will in the World. How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. London: Pimlico. Isherwood, C. (2001). “Shakespeare’s Villains: A Masterclass in Evil”. Variety, Penske Business Media, Jan 22-28, Vol.381(9). p.50. Kolin, P. C, “Othello and Interpretive Traditions” (review), Theatre Journal, Dec 2000, 52, 4. pp. 591-592. Lehmann, H-T. (2006). Postdramatic Theatre. Karen Jürs-Munby (trans). London and New York: Routledge. PIister, M. (2000). The Theory And Analysis Of Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Rafter, N. (2005). Badfellas: Movie psychos, popular culture, and law. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Law and Popular Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 339-357. Rand, F. P. (1950). "The Over Garrulous Iago". Shakespeare Quarterly 1 (3). pp.154-161. Rosenberg, M. (1955). "In Defense Of Iago". Shakespeare Quarterly 6 (2). pp.145-158. Sachs, M. (1962). "Notes On The Theatricality Of Jean Anouilh's Antigone". The French Review 36 (1 Oct), pp.3-11. Serkis, A. (2003). Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic. Houghton, MifIin Company Schoenmakers, H. (1988). "To be, wanting to be, forced to be - identiIication processes in theatrical studies." New directions in audience research - advances in reception and audience research. Tijdschrift voor Theaterwetenschap, 24/25 (1/2). pp.139-163. 119 Snodin, D. (2012). Iago. Henry Holt and Co. Szondi, P. (2002). An Essay On The Tragic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tullmann, K. (2016). "Sympathy And Fascination". The British Journal Of Aesthetics 56 (2). pp. 115-129. West, F. (1978). "Iago The Psychopath". South Atlantic Bulletin 43 (2). pp.27-35. Whalen, R. (2011). Commedia dell’arte in Othello: a Satiric Comedy Ending in Tragedy. Brief Chronicles 3.

Performances/Audio-Visual references Dexter, James Manos Jr (developed), 2006-2013, John Goldwyn Productions, United States Hannibal, Bryan Fuller (developed), 2013-2015, Dino de Laurentiis Company, United States Othello, directed by Wilson Milam (2008. UK, The Shakespeare Globe Trust). https:// globeplayer.tv/videos/othello Othello, directed by Jonathan Miller (1981. UK, BBC). https://www.digitaltheatreplus.com/ education/collections/bbc-studios/othello Othello, directed by Trevor Nunn (1990. UK, Image Entertainment). DVD. Othello, directed by Oliver Parker (1995. UK/USA, Columbia Pictures). https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPVvNgZkemE.

Approaching Shakespeare, Smith, E, audio recording, University of Oxford, October 18, 2010. https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/othello Goodness: Altruism and the Literary Imagination, Morrison, T, Harvard Divinity School, published December 14, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=PJmVpYZnKTU&feature=youtu.be Othello: Behind the Lines National Theatre Discover. Published on Oct 5, 2013. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHsaO2IpTYg Othello: Iago and Othello. National Theatre Discover. Published on Sep 25, 2013. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoCIwJn9Ic Shakespeare Uncovered: David Harewood on Othello, Directed by Nicola Stockley (2015, USA, PBS). https://www.digitaltheatreplus.com/education/collections/bbc-studios/shakespeare- uncovered-david-harewood-on-othello Toni Morrison on language, evil and 'the white gaze’, Morrison, T, Cornel University, published March 18, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAs3E1AgNeM&feature=youtu.be

Websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iago https://notevenpast.org/ourstories/othello-a-stage-history/ 120 https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/o/othello/character-analysis/iago https://www.hnt.nl/voorstellingen/950/Het_Nationale_Theater/Othello/ http://shakespeareantheatre/.suite101.com/article.cfm/othello_at_the_globe https://www.shmoop.com/othello/iago.html http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/othello/character/iago/ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2011/oct/14/how-old-is-shakespeare- iago https://www.bellshakespeareblog.worldpress.com https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jul/28/rory-kinnear-antony-sher-richard- mccabe-iago-othello https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/12/daniel-craig-david-oyelowo-othello- shakespeare-photos https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org

Images Figure 1: Schema of forces with Othello as the thematic force

Figure 2: Schema of forces with Iago as the thematic force

Figure 3: Key symptoms for de

Figure 4: Attractive psycho-marketing (Dexter and Hannibal - Mads Mikkelsen). https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-better-character-Dexter-or-Hannibal-TV-Show- portrayal Image uncredited.

Figure 5: Hoskins Iago. http://bbcshakespeare.blogspot.com/2014/11/othello-series-4-episode-1.html Image uncredited.

Figure 6: McInnerny Iago. https://twitter.com/the_globe/status/861158668741427201 Image uncredited

Figure 7: Branagh Iago. https://www.pinterest.jp/pin/496521927660169537/ 121 Image uncredited

Figure 8: McKellen Iago. https://www.pinterest.jp/pin/224757837624268046/?lp=true Image uncredited.

Figure 9: Melodramatic Iago, with diabolical eyebrow. http://4umi.com/shakespeare/iago/ Image uncredited

Figure 10: Melodramatic Iago, with sinisterly erect posture. http://broadway.cas.sc.edu/sites/default/Iiles/Sarony-EdwinBoth-Iago2.jpg Harvard Theater Collection, TCS 1.3033 Photographer: Napoleon Sarony. Edwin Booth as Iago

Figure 11: Mind-reading invader (Rasputin style) Iago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iago#/media/File:Othello_and_Iago.gif CyberGhostface - Charles and Mary Lamb, Tales from Shakespeare (Philadelphia: Henry Altemus Company, 1901) Illustration of Othello and Iago

Figure 12: Iago as puppeteer. https://www.youthvoices.live/2017/04/17/othello-audio-recording/ Image uncredited

Figure 13: Business Iago. http://iadrigo.blogspot.com Image uncredited

Figure 14: National Theatre promotional image. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/reviewing-shakespeare/time-black-iago/ Image uncredited.

Figure 15: Nagoya 2017 production promotional image. https://nagmag.jp/nameless-theatre-presents-william-shakespeares-othello-june-6-9-2017/ Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale.

Figure 16: Oh, what a beautiful mornin’! http://whysoblu.com/oklahoma-blu-ray-review/ Image uncredited.

Figure 17: The Rodders handshake Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 18: Kissing Emilia Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 19: Homo-erotic Rodders Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale 122

Figure 20: The loathing watcher Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 21: Dishing the poison, in shades of jealous green. Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 22: Final Freeman Iago moments (the wake). Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 23: Wine ho! Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 24. Tomfoolery - with Cassio Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 25: At attention Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 26: Stabbed! Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 27. Pained Freeman Iago Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Ryan Seale

Figure 28: Opening con

Fig. 29: Craig Iago. https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/12/daniel-craig-david-oyelowo-othello- shakespeare-photos David Oyelowo as Othello and Daniel Craig as Iago. Photo: Photograph by Charlie Gray.

Fig. 30: Intensity and intimacy in rehearsal. Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Susie Misuzu

Fig. 31: Fun and frivolity in rehearsal. Nameless Theatre publicity. Photographer Susie Misuzu 123 Images

Fig. 1: Schema of forces with Othello as the thematic force

Thematic Arbiter force receiver The doge Othello Othello Desdemona desires

object of aid desire opposed Desdemona Emilia Iago happiness Bianca Roderigo

Brabantio

Fig. 2: Schema of forces with Iago as the thematic force

124 Fig. 3: Key symptoms for de

Fig.4: Attractive psycho-marketing (Dexter and Hannibal - Mads Mikkelsen). Interesting comparisons can be made with the imagery of the National Theatre production (Figure 14) and also my own show (Figure 15). 125 Performances

Fig. 5: Hoskins Iago.

Fig. 6: McInnerny Iago. 126 Fig. 7: Branagh Iago.

Fig. 8: McKellen Iago.

127 Actor Research

Fig. 9: Melodramatic Iago, with diabolical eyebrow.

Fig. 10: Melodramatic Iago, with sinisterly erect posture. 128 Fig. 11: Mind-reading invader (Rasputin style) Iago. Iago’s penetrating eyes - reinforced by the dastardly moustache - destroying Othello’s brain in this image.

Fig. 12: Iago as puppeteer. Here Iago’s eyes blaze through the shadow that covers the brain portion of his head. This image also has echoes of Iago being at the centre of a a web. In his comments on Tartuffe, Donahue considers him “not a solitary creature but rather as an intersection of many different lines of contact. Just as when one strand of a spider’s web is touched, vibrations are sent throughout the web, so it is that movement of one role in a system of characters affects all others”. Donahue, op. cit., p.67. 129 Fig. 13: Business Iago. This picture was a good stimulus for placing the Iigure in a world of company warfare.

Fig. 14: National Theatre promotional image. This is classic Othello imagery. Compare this with Figure 15 for instance. 130 Fig. 15: Nagoya 2017 production promotional image. The local rag’s monthly edition. Though we mirror the positions of the characters in Figure 14, this Othello and Iago look a lot less inIlicted.

Fig. 16: Oh, what a beautiful mornin’! Oh, what a beautiful day/I’ve got a beautiful feelin’/Everything’s goin' my way. Hugh Jackman as Curly in Oklahoma!

131 My own performance: tying research together in a reading and re

Intimacy

Fig. 17: The Rodders handshake A small piece of business I introduced to all my meetings with Rodders, to ensure he always left feeling special.

Fig. 18: Kissing Emilia This actor psychopath will do anything to get that handkerchief.

132 Fig. 19: Homo-erotic Rodders The penultimate scene with Rodders requires that Iago be particularly intimate, in order to calm the idiot who is ironically onto him.

Classic Iago

Fig. 20: The loathing watcher In the energy of Branagh Iago and his knife (Figure 7) 133

Fig. 21: Dishing the poison, in shades of jealous green.

Fig. 22: Final Freeman Iago moments (the wake).

134 The performer

Fig. 23: Wine ho!

Fig. 24. Tomfoolery - with Cassio 135 Fig. 25: At attention This was a go-to position, in the company of the General especially, and often climaxed in a gracious bow.

Hamming it up

Fig. 26: Stabbed! Othello interrogates Iago about the integrity of his accusations. For some context; I considered my Iago hard as nails a human, but also unbreakable as a theatrical construct. In this scene, with this is the back of my mind, I played as injured - physically and psychologically - as was believable (and a little bit more). 136 Fig. 27. Pained Freeman Iago A favourite moment of mine in the show, when Iago is asked to give testimony about the Iight that breaks out at the party. I took a moment to turn dramatically to the audience, to show how much it hurt to speak ill of my beloved friend Cassio, before composing myself to provide the commentary.

Ensemble

Fig. 28: Opening con

Fig. 30: Intensity and intimacy in rehearsal. Again…even if it is just for show. 138

Fig. 31: Fun and frivolity in rehearsal. Rodders and Iago, with Japanese pop-culture oddities.