Doctor Faustus (Christopher Marlowe) & Mephisto (Film by Istvan Szabo) Comparative Study

Doctor Faustus (Christopher Marlowe) & Mephisto (film by Istvan Szabo) comparative study. The intellectual process of allusion that is evident in the comparative study of Christopher Marlowe’s late 16th century tragedy of The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus and Istvan Szabo’s 1981 film Mephisto, reveals the fact that although the anxiety about the Faustian pact and loss of morality remains constant, the exact social and moral anxiety itself differs due to the shift from a religious to a secular, political context. Where Marlowe’s play is concerned with exploring the sense that all individuals are prone to becoming a Faustian figure as individualism is an increasing trap that will – from the perspective of the renaissance, result in the loss of the soul and eternal damnation, for Szabo, society has abandoned the concept of external evil so that the Faustian pact has become a pursuit of fame at the cost of the inner moral conscience. These ideas are explored in very different forms with Marlowe’s tragedy utilising a blend of powerful psychological realism and medieval mystery play and as for Szabo, a film that differs from the philosophical absolutism of Marlowe with a dark realistic allegory of ambiguous and a symbolic climax marked by greater moral ambivalence. These differences in idea and form are due to the changes in values with the Elizabethan period marked humanism and a religious, absolute morality in conflict with new capitalist individualism and Szabo’s rejection of both the East’s totalitarianism and the West’s individualism and the collapse of religious faith allowing the Faustian story to become a metaphor. Doctor Faustus in Marlowe’s text and Hofgen in Szabo’s film, both choose to ignore the social forces of their time in order to pursue individualism. Marlowe’s play, written in the renaissance – a period that marked a start to a greater availability and expansion of knowledge, portrays Faustus as a reflection of the new emphasis on the newfound belief that humanity itself through science, can understand instead of the previous convention of deferring this task to the divine. This in effect, leads Faustus to exhibit the signs of hubris which eventually leads him to attempt to transcend limitation and transgress religious moral codes. His soliloquy in his study demonstrates his materialistic ambitions of being ‘eterniz’d’ and wishes for ‘a world of profit and delight,/Of power, of honour, of omnipotence’. We see that Faustus’ intentions are entirely based on self interest – with the use of anaphora conveying the sense of this exalted and fervent desire. This is reinforced by his metaphoric statement that ‘a sound magician is a demi god’ with the, suggesting that God’s influence and importance has decreased in the minds’ of scholars such as Faustus who longed to distinguish themselves through their own devices. Whereas Faustus’ ambitions were of an abstract, indeed absolute, nature, Hofgen’s are far less lofty, for, a vain actor, he is merely after worldly fame and not absolute beauty or knowledge. This is exemplified in his profession of ‘I’m satisfied with success. It means many love me’. Like Faustus, Szabo portrays Hofgen to be full of himself to the degree to which he proclaims that ‘heaven evidently has great plans for me’. Through satirising his protagonist’s pursuit of fame, Szabo presents a 20th century appropriation of the Faustian myth exposing the rise of technology and popular media constituting the modern sense of fame. Faustus’s self-centred, individualistic ideals to satisfy his lust for knowledge and power, inevitably leads him into conflict with the conventional wisdom of the renaissance: that each individual has a role to play pro bono. He demonstrates this individualism as he scours his spell books for magic – a symbol for the unknown, that would give him power to accomplish his own goals as shown through the remark that ‘necromantic books are heavenly’. Through the paradox that necromancy is ‘heavenly’ when magic was seen to be satanic, creates the dramatic irony in the sense that the audience knows he is doomed. With historical accounts of Marlowe portraying him to be an atheist and iconoclast, this heavily implies Faustus to be his allegorical figure - paralleling Marlowe’s own struggle in reconciling his views with the renaissance. Standing in stark contrast with the presumptuous aspiration of Faustus, Hofgen‘s ambition of fame and social prestige seems to stem from his inner insecurity. This is shown when the minister asks him ‘why do you have such a limp handshake?’ The ironic juxtaposition between the image of Hofgen with a painted face having just played the part of Mephisto – a character of power, and such a weak gesture suggests that his acting is for the purpose of wishful self-delusion as well as to bask in other people’s love and adulation to satisfy such insecurity. Unlike Marlowe, Hofgen is not an allegory of Szabo but rather a reverse allegory. Though he did remain in Hungary after the Hungarian revolution of 1956 as he was blackmailed and forced to cooperate as an agent in the communist agency of interior intelligence, unlike Hofgen - who remained for selfish purposes, Szabo considers his agent work heroic and needful, claiming he saved the life of a friend sentenced to death for his involvement in the revolution. Given that both characters’ desire to pursue individualism in their respect forms - power and knowledge for Faustus and worldly fame for Hofgen, there are social forces that need to be overcome to achieving this. For Faustus to accomplish his goals, he is confronted with the strong religious forces at the time during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Marlowe’s allusion to an Ancient Greek philosopher that the people ‘live and die in Aristotle’s work’, imparts the limitations that are placed on socially acceptable knowledge at the time. Faustus however, is willing to transgress such limitations for his goals and bids ‘Divinity, adieu!’. This highlights a complete dismissal of a higher being and embraces the occult and heretical practices of Lucifer. His first act which marked the start of his pact with Lucifer was when – believing he has the power and authority, he summons Mephistopheles. Though when Mephistopheles was asked why he appeared, he answers ‘For when we hear one rack, the word God, abjure the scriptures and his saviour Christ’. We see that blinded by hubris as Mephistopheles had come not because of his power, but because of the abandonment of God. This creates dramatic irony showing the audience that God is still in control despite Faustus’ abjuration and therefore highlighting the authority of God and religion during this period. Szabo on the other hand, raises the question of whether an artist – in this case namely Hofgen, should place professional success above human responsibilities in a fascist regime. Hofgen is faced with the choice of leaving Germany after the Nazi takeover with most of his friends and relatives, including his wife, Barbara, or remain in Berlin, abandon his leftist position and become a symbol for Nazism. He answers this question when asked by his wife by proclaiming that ‘the only form of freedom for me, for an actor’ is to ‘stay’. The absurd paradox of staying in an authoritarian state to have freedom, illustrates that he is willing to drop all moral responsibility and his previous views as a leftist because he cannot bear the thought of being deprived of his fame. In a similar manner to Faustus, Hofgen believes that he is in control – fabricating ideologies for himself to explain his acts, not only to justify staying, but to consider himself the protector of human values. ‘I am part of that force that always craves evil and always creates good’. We see he justifies his actions through the paradox that having – in the Faustian sense sold his ‘soul’ to Nazis, he will do ‘good’. The General, however, only sees in Hofgen as an actor not the man himself. In actuality, it is the General who holds all the power as evident through the paradox when the General says ‘it seems the secret of acting is to portray strength, yet one is weak.’ Futhermore, he keeps calling him ‘Mephisto,’ ‘Hamlet,’ or ‘actor’ in a sardonic display of dramatic irony belittling Hofgen and showing that his skill is in acting and not politics. During the medieval period, a social hierarchical structure of ‘the great chain of being’ was still strongly in place – as captured in the plays of Shakespeare with transgressions of this resulting in tragedy thereby imparting the message that such acts are highly unacceptable to society. This view seems to have also apparently been adopted by Marlowe in his play as well with Faustus’ transgression of these social forces through his individualism eventually lead to his downfall. In his last lines, he cries out ‘Ugly hell gape not! Come not, Lucifer! / I’ll burn my books – ah, Mephistopheles!’. Here Faustus aptly expresses the play’s representation of the clash between Renaissance – symbolised by the ‘books’ with medieval values and the dire consequences of being carried off to hell for challenging such values. Indeed Marlowe seems to give in to the medieval Christian worldview however one must question whether this is truly the case given Marlowe’s historical reputation of being an atheist and also by the fact that we see Faustus flaunting his impunity and power and enjoying his experience of the world in the twenty four years. We see an example of this in his encounter with the pope in Rome – describing his trip as ‘pass’d with delight the stately town of Trier’ and playing tricks on the cardinals striking them with ‘sloth and drowsy idleness’.

Load more