I really enjoyed reading the interview with Kent Thompson because I feel like it really brought to light a lot of answers to questions about the play and touches on a lot of themes that should be important to the audience/reader. Right off the bat, Thompson says that he does not produce Othello often, and he only did so in 1994 under very specific conditions.

He said that he only produces the play in ASF's octagon theatre, which lends itself to a psychological clausterphobia that enhances the feeling of tension in the play. He states "when the play becomes grandiose or exaggerated, it deflates the actual pain of its tragedy". Immediately I thought of our class discussions of Medea, where

we believed that the spectacle of the fire dragon chariot and the bloody bodies of Medea's children was so ridiculous it was almost humor.

Thompson also gave some insight into the casting of Othello. He commented that most directors will not produce Othello unless they already have their Othello in mind. He doesn't believe that in this day and age Othello can be played by a caucasian actor.Thompson quotes "the challenge in casting Othello is to find an actor who can believably portray an extrordinary warrior-hero yet still be an outsider." Thompson's title character, played by Derrick Lee Weeden is handsome, warm and appealing. 6'3' broad and masculine, he exudes an aura of leadership and bravery. I think this is important for cultivating the image of Othello as a mislead hero, instead of a murderer.

{ photo from Alabama Shakespeare Festival}

Shakespeare's title character, Othello, is a stark contrast to the typical venetian. He is cultural and racial ( described as the "moor", "the thick-lips", and "a barbary horse" alluding to his dark skin color) outsider to the city of Venice, yet integral to the state as a soldier. Of the course of the play he is called on numerous times to deal with important state/security matters. His confidence and self assuredness in his abilities and adventures as a warrior serve him well at the beginning of the play. He is able to convince the Duke that Brabanzio is wrong, and that both Brabanzio and his daughter Desdemona loved him and invited him into their home to tell his stories. However, by the end of the play we see an unraveling of Othello's self assuredness as he bemoans Desdemona's perceived infidelities. He claims that his moorish heritage was of no appeal to Desdemona and she loves him no more.

I think that this shift in Othello's gives him more complexity as a tragic character. Not purely vengeful because of his wife's perceived wrongs, we see an undercurrent of emotional distress about his place in the Venetian society. I feel that adding this dimension to Othello's personality makes us more sympathetic to him. We are especially sympathetic when he learns that this was all a big mistake and manipulation by Iago, this is the element of recognition that Aristotle praises in a tragedy.

Before Othello takes his own life, his farewell speech reaffirms his position as both a valued member of Venetian society but also an outsider. Its particularly sad because although Othello's position in Venice came from his own prowess, he is still equally recognized for his racial heritage.

Both the supplement from Aristotle's Poetics and the supplement from Miller's Tragedy and the Common Man explain what they think the essential tragic character is in very similar terms. Aristotle believes that the character of whom the tragedy is unfolding should be somewhere between a villain and a hero/man of ideals. Aristotle points out that misfortune befalling a villain isn't sad, and misfortune befalling a virtuous man is plainly "morally repugnant". Arthur Miller emphasizes the ability of the tragic character to be a common man, not necessarily a significant person like someone of royal blood.

The two interpretations differ in their ideas of not who the characters are but what happens to them. While Aristotle sees the action of the story as what misfortunes befall the character (and goes into great detail explaining what these misfortunes should be), Miller specifically outlines that a tragic feeling is evoked when " we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing- his sense of personal dignity". Miller believes that the events of the tragedy spiral from the wounds of indignity.

I thought this was particularly pertinent given our reading of Medea last week. Regardless of ones thoughts on whether or not Medea was actually a tragic character, her crazy spree of redemption stemmed up from the indignity forced upon her by her unfaithful husband Jason. Her "tragic flaw" was her inability to swallow her pride to save her from her own exile and ultimately save her from herself.

My strongest reaction to Medea was in how timeless some of the stories of tragedy are. Medea has a fairly unsophisticated plot. Man wrongs woman, man and woman get divorced, bitter woman gets revenge on man. This sequence of events has become so mainstream in this country, with its 50% divorce rate, that it is merely more than material for a romantic comedy or tabloid fodder. Thousands of years after Euripedes wrote his tragedy for the audience of Athens. this story line is still pertinent.

The difference lies in where the audiences’ sympathies fall. Most of the time we feel bad for the figurative scorned woman, left behind to support herself and her children. The theme of exile is timeless in it’s tragedy. Exile doesn’t exist now like it did then, with people being banished to the countryside to never return. But the loss of social support, of a home or of one’s family is heartbreaking. However, Euripede’s title character, Medea, is so bereft, inconsolable and sinister in her rage that it makes it difficult for the audience to empathize. While her situation is disheartening, Euripede’s makes his character so unlikable that I find myself feeling much more for Jason, and wondering how he ended up in cahoots with a vengeful lunatic like Medea.

I think this confusion of allegiance to the characters is where interest in the play lies. Sure what Jason did was wrong, in theory, but I don’t really feel like Medea deserves happiness anyways. This diversion from the formulaic is appreciated.