I'm not going to give a plot recap or anything like that, I'm assuming that anyone posting in here has some idea about the play.

Basically, I would say that it's one of the most interesting pieces of racial representations from this period (and yeah, we can talk about The Tempest, too, if you want, but I don't like that one nearly as much as Othello) and I'm still undecided if it's racist or uplifting. Is it in Othello's "nature" to be an animalistic, war-like person who is easily swayed by his passions? Or are his extreme passions just another outgrowth of his nobility and strength, and their huge eruption a result of unfortunate circumstance?

No doubt, there have been some baldly racist interpretations. Here's a review from 1984 I found of Laurence Olivier's black-faced representation of Othello from 1964: "No one who saw the production is ever likely to forget the shock of Olivier's initial appearance -- not Robeson's magnificently royal Moor, but as Olivier himself described his characterisation, a 'tremendously, highly sexual' black man: kinky-haired, bare feet adorned with ankle bracelets, eyes narrowed so that just slits of white show, a short white tunic emphasising his blackness, and in his hand a crimson rose that nearly matched his sensuous red lips and tongue. Despite the huge gold crucifix that he wears, and which in the temptation scene he will savagely tear off and toss aside, this converted Otherllo is barely civilised, not a 'Moor of Venice' but a true African."

But aside from these, there is also the interpretation of a strong black man who is destroyed by white society. It's almost inevitable that tragedy should strike a Moor who attempts to ingratiate himself in Christian society, because of their jealousy and hatred which will always be directed at him.

Also, I watched the modern-day remake "O" (which was squarely "okay") and you can't help but ignore the rage and anger a black man in an all-white community would inevitably be feeling. This movie, though, is a perfect encapsulation of what bothers me about Othello. In the film Odin is a tragic character manipulated by Hugo, but there are also distasteful moments where he just becomes a flat, angry, black youth that can't overcome his "ghetto" upbringing. His black sexuality and animalism take over all too easily once the wheels of Hugo's plan is set in motion.

Anyway, I'm doing way too much reading about this play this weekend, so I need to come on here and blow off some steam. Any and all discussion of Othello and racism, Shakespeare and racism (I mean, you can't ignore The Tempest), and even Shakespeare and sexism (if you really want to open that can of worms) is welcome here.

Anything written back in that time (well pretty much anything) will be grounded in racism. Merchant of Venice is called anti-semitic. There are a number of other plays (of which I'm blanking on now) that feature characters that would be offensive caricatures if they were conceived today. A good number of Shakespeare's plays are problematic but, again, so were the times they were written in. He didn't transcend any politics of his era so those will always infect a modern viewing of his

The biggest issue I have is when people remake Shakespeare and stick with the racism in them. At least in "O" they tried to explain it a bit with drugs but still, it didn't really take away from the stink. You could remake it and add in new motivations and short-comings that don't rely on racism.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

I mean, it's easy to say that everything from that time is going to be racist. But at the same time it's obviously unique in its creation of Othello as a hero. If we are to assume that most people of that era would hold prejudices against Moors, either for their skin color or their non-Christian faith, isn't it interesting that Shakespeare presents a valiant and noble general who is able to find true love with an upper-class white woman?

If anything, Iago and Roderigo are the villains because they can't see past Othello's skin color to his intrinsic values. I mean, for the most part critics have regarded Othello as noble and honorable and Iago as the devilish fiend acting on pure malice. I think in some respects the play sets it up so that it's a failing of the audience if they are unable to view Othello independent of his skin ... but then you run into the problem, is it his skin which propels the tragic action? The influential critic A.C. Bradley said that even an Englishman would fall victim to the traps of jealousy and that skin color is not an issue, but should we believe him?

I can't help but think of Eminem in all this, too, and how his songs about murdering Kim are just musical imaginings of the same tragedy, and look at how people reacted to that. Perhaps you could say that the reaction to Eminem shows the racism, because when a white man DOES fall victim to this it's barbaric, horrible, worthy of censure, but when a Moor falls victim to his passions it's tragic, inevitable, lamentable, not nearly as outrageous or unthinkable as Em.

And then quickly -- yeah, the drugs in "O" were far and away my least favorite part.

And also, did you see the Pacino version of Merchant of Venice? Because I think they did a pretty remarkable job of redeeming Shylock and bringing the play up from its own anti-semitism.

So like, are the plays themselves racist, or is it more dependent on how we choose to interpret them? I'm currently thinking it has more to do with interpretation.

I will be back in this post.

I have to go rehearse for a presentation of The Winter's Tale that I'm doing in a couple of weeks. But I'll be back.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

but his good traits arent tied to his blackness but his faults really are, so in that sense I can see how racial stereotypes are enforced.

The origin of the "black" traits can also be taken as a result of the prodding of yt society, I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Maybe you could look at the union of Othello and Desdemona, then, as being representative of two virtuous people coming together. Like, the only person capable of loving someone as "perfect" as Desdemona is the virtuous Moor, and their love must overcome the prejudices that surround them.

Shakespeare is always interested in "love" in his plays and how it's constructed and what is real and what is play, etc. and I always get the sense from this play that Othello and Desdemona truly love each other. Also, if you consider one of the major changes he made from the source story was adding the first act in Venice, the act where Iago snitches on him to Desdemona's dad and then they have to answer in front of him, it becomes more interesting. He manipulates it so that they publicly prove their love to everyone's satisfaction, removing any doubt that theirs is a marriage of convenience and instead a union of two true lovers. I think that's a critical point, personally.

Also, another major change from the source story is that the source story is *very* explicit about saying that the moral of the story is to not marry below your station (as Desdemona is seen to have done) so by establishing them as true lovers, it makes it more so that their fall is a result of the white society being unable to accept their union. It's not that their improperly matched, it's that other people can't get over their prejudices to accept them, and their jealousy and prejudice will destroy their happiness.

Although some critics interpret his tragic fall as being propelled by his "nature", I think in many ways it's just a tragic action brought on a noble man. I dunno, at the very least it's extremely progressive because it *foregrounds* these issues, inter-racial dating and a black man in a high station, and then makes you sit and think about them instead of just sweeping them under the rug like so much other art from that period.

this is in line with my thoughts on 'othello' as well.

personally, i don't buy that shakespeare was suggesting his 'nature' was the reason for his undoing. the subject of race makes it more of a hot topic for some. othello is clearly the hero in the story, and brought down by circumstances that just about anyone could have fallen for.

the play definitely speaks to the insecurities of society at that time and a lot can be drawn from that today.

MySpace
http://www.myspace.com/chaidealo

Check out my brother's band if you have a sec.

http://www.myspace.com/romeobleu

http://cdbaby.com/cd/romeoblue

His cd is also on i-tunes. http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?p=6317794&s

Throughout the play his nobility and accomplishments were repeatedly hailed as an example of him transcending his blackness.

Fun is the new gritty

>Throughout the play his nobility and accomplishments were
>repeatedly hailed as an example of him transcending his
>blackness.

Because like I've said in a few of my posts, I think there *is* a reading of the play where you can say that the moral is the white society's inability to accept a strong, successful, confident, accomplished, romantic, noble, and virtuous black man in their midst and that their prejudice is his undoing.

I dunno, it's hard for me to just say that a play, where a black man is the title character, the general of the state's army, and married to one of the most eligible women in town, is flatly racist.

I think its the play itself. Even Othello himself had moments where he damned his blackness. All his success is attributed to him being better than his skin. That to me is pretty damn racist.

Now I will say that it was highly more progressive than anything else at that time, but that doesn't make it any less racist in my eyes.

Fun is the new gritty

because of how others perceive it?

Or because of what it actually is?

Were back to square one lol.

changes the play itself?

Because I don't think the text of the play, by itself, is racist, and I don't think performances or reinterpretations (like "O") have to be racist, either.

I mean, yeah, there's the necessary element of a black man in a hostile white environment, but does that setting alone make it racist? I mean, that makes ... well ... basically every single thing featuring a black character in America racist.

"I'm one of the world's great survivors. I'll always survive because I've got the right combination of wit, grit and bullshit."

© Don King

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

A self hating black man who looked for validation in the eyes of white people instead of himself. By doing this Othello puts the whites in the play in a superior position and himself an inferior one. This is what I dislike most about the play. Most the evil acts by the whites in the play are portrayed in a negative light but Othellos longing to be white and to be accepted as some thing "more" than a black man is portrayed as noble. I call it White Supremacy

As said in another post he curses his blackness an accepts backhanded compliments the entire play. Being called a credit to your race is an insult, It imply that the rest your people are savages but some how you turned out to decent. The entire plays suggest that Othello is some special black/Moor not like all the others. Even though the Moors had conquered Spain(Theres a great book about this period called The Story of the Moors in Spain by Stanley Lane-Poole). There was a lot of pressure put on Othello I but still thought that he flew into murderous rage to easily. Typical angry black man. Now I haven't read this thing in many many years but those are my thoughts

"I'm one of the world's great survivors. I'll always survive because I've got the right combination of wit, grit and bullshit."

© Don King

...which is an obvious play on the word "cannibal" and he has some speeches which can be interpreted as complaints about how his island was stolen from him by his new white master, Prospero. The whole play is set on a fictional island away from the courtly, white world. There's some insinuations that Caliban only learned his wickedness from Prospero (because he ends up doing evil deeds in the play) and that he was innocent and good before Prospero arrived, although these things have mainly been read into it in recent years.

Previously Caliban had been cast and played as a grotesque savage and the obvious villain of the play, but now he is made more dignified and sympathetic. Shakespeare was definitely reading about the Jamestown colonies and the like, so it's definitely, in small parts, an attempt to explore the nature of colonialism and the "natives" that it affects.

I wish I had time to talk in this post more. All of my posts as of late have mostly been subject-only responses. But here goes.

>...which is an obvious play on the word "cannibal" and he has
>some speeches which can be interpreted as complaints about how
>his island was stolen from him by his new white master,
>Prospero.

There's no interpretation there. He complains outright that the island was stolen from him.

The whole play is set on a fictional island away
>from the courtly, white world. There's some insinuations that
>Caliban only learned his wickedness from Prospero (because he
>ends up doing evil deeds in the play) and that he was innocent
>and good before Prospero arrived, although these things have
>mainly been read into it in recent years.

Let me clarify this for some less familiar with The Tempest. On the island before the play began lived a witch named Sycorax who had captured Ariel the spirit and ruled the island. Prospero came, imprisoned Sycorax, enslaved Sycorax's son Caliban, and enslaved Ariel. Caliban did not know how to speak until Miranda, Prospero's daughter, taught him how. By learning how to speak, Miranda taught him how to curse. He began to think of himself as being the heir apparent to be the crown prince of the island, since his mama ruled it back in the day. However, he knows that Prospero is more powerful, and that he will never escape his enslavement. So he spends his time cursing Prospero, cursing his state, and committing evil deeds. There are possible hints of his goodness before Prospero came, HOWEVER, one could view his evil deeds that he does within the play as a direct result of his enslavement. There's also a hint of the old "you shouldn't educate a slave, because then he will curse his position" thing at play.


>Previously Caliban had been cast and played as a grotesque
>savage and the obvious villain of the play, but now he is made
>more dignified and sympathetic.

I wouldn't even stop there. I'd say from a literary standpoint he has been sympathetic for quite some time. He is still portrayed as savage, and as "heavy" (he is, in ways, a spirit of the Earth), but Shakespeare clearly intended on the audience being enraptured by Caliban. He is never vulgar, he is never base. He speaks in verse for almost the entire play (if not all the time) and is given many of the most beautiful poetic passages in the play (one of my all-time favorite speeches: "Be not afeared, the isle is full of noises"). Speaking from a literary analysis standpoint, there is a case made simply by the beauty and poetry of the words and knowledge of Caliban (and Ariel, to a degree) within the text that shows Prospero's wrongdoing in being such a ruthless master. His depiction as a grotesque villain in Shakespeare's day likely had less to do with the textual indication and more to do with that era in society and how natives were viewed.

Shakespeare was definitely
>reading about the Jamestown colonies and the like, so it's
>definitely, in small parts, an attempt to explore the nature
>of colonialism and the "natives" that it affects.

Which is a very interesting thing to examine in this play. Another interesting topic: if Shakespeare IS Prospero (which it is quite easy to read the play that way), then why does he make his slaves, Ariel and Caliban, so eloquent and poetic, since it serves to cast a dark shadow over Prospero's actions?

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>Let me clarify this for some less familiar with The Tempest.
>On the island before the play began lived a witch named
>Sycorax who had captured Ariel the spirit and ruled the
>island. Prospero came, imprisoned Sycorax, enslaved Sycorax's
>son Caliban, and enslaved Ariel. Caliban did not know how to
>speak until Miranda, Prospero's daughter, taught him how. By
>learning how to speak, Miranda taught him how to curse. He
>began to think of himself as being the heir apparent to be the
>crown prince of the island, since his mama ruled it back in
>the day. However, he knows that Prospero is more powerful, and
>that he will never escape his enslavement. So he spends his
>time cursing Prospero, cursing his state, and committing evil
>deeds. There are possible hints of his goodness before
>Prospero came, HOWEVER, one could view his evil deeds that he
>does within the play as a direct result of his enslavement.
>There's also a hint of the old "you shouldn't educate a slave,
>because then he will curse his position" thing at play.

Exactly, the teaching the language thing is the critical point. How much of the source stories have you read? Because I read one by a French author which was titled "Cannibals" or something like that, or else it refered to the natives as cannibals (I probably read it in the Norton edition of the play, so you've probably seen it) but now I can't remember exactly what the author was saying. All I remember is that he had a slightly different viewpoint about educating the savages than your typical "white man's burden" thing and actually expressed somewhat progressive ideas. So Shakespeare was definitely playing with that, but I forget the details right now.

>I wouldn't even stop there. I'd say from a literary standpoint
>he has been sympathetic for quite some time. He is still
>portrayed as savage, and as "heavy" (he is, in ways, a spirit
>of the Earth), but Shakespeare clearly intended on the
>audience being enraptured by Caliban. He is never vulgar, he
>is never base. He speaks in verse for almost the entire play
>(if not all the time) and is given many of the most beautiful
>poetic passages in the play (one of my all-time favorite
>speeches: "Be not afeared, the isle is full of noises").
>Speaking from a literary analysis standpoint, there is a case
>made simply by the beauty and poetry of the words and
>knowledge of Caliban (and Ariel, to a degree) within the text
>that shows Prospero's wrongdoing in being such a ruthless
>master. His depiction as a grotesque villain in Shakespeare's
>day likely had less to do with the textual indication and more
>to do with that era in society and how natives were viewed.

Right, Caliban *is* a very worthwhile character and was mainly forgotten just due to societal prejudices, but that's just another testament to the power of racism, how people can read that part for so long and completely ignore the power and eloquence it possessed.

>Which is a very interesting thing to examine in this play.
>Another interesting topic: if Shakespeare IS Prospero (which
>it is quite easy to read the play that way), then why does he
>make his slaves, Ariel and Caliban, so eloquent and poetic,
>since it serves to cast a dark shadow over Prospero's
>actions?

I dunno, I always thought that the Shakespeare as Prospero reading was incompatible with the post-colonial readings, because I don't think that Shakespeare really viewed himself as a colonizer. I don't really care for the Shakespeare as Prospero reading for that reason, although I definitely see where it's coming from. I guess I just imagine Shakespeare holding two themes, the colonizer v. colonized theme, and then the farewell to the stage, and neither one is ultimately dominant, they just kind of co-exist. Like the whole courtly intrigue, with him manipulating all the characters in the play, is his stage elements, and then because he had been reading about colonization he figured, "Well, if we're on a remote island, why not have a native?" and then that just grew into Caliban and Ariel. I dunno, do you see a way to reconcile those two themes? But maybe it was just his cynicism which came with old age, where he felt some of his work was being harmful or misinterpreted or something, but then I wasn't aware of too much interpretation of his work until he passed away.

>>Which is a very interesting thing to examine in this play.
>>Another interesting topic: if Shakespeare IS Prospero (which
>>it is quite easy to read the play that way), then why does
>he
>>make his slaves, Ariel and Caliban, so eloquent and poetic,
>>since it serves to cast a dark shadow over Prospero's
>>actions?
>
>I dunno, I always thought that the Shakespeare as Prospero
>reading was incompatible with the post-colonial readings,
>because I don't think that Shakespeare really viewed himself
>as a colonizer. I don't really care for the Shakespeare as
>Prospero reading for that reason, although I definitely see
>where it's coming from. I guess I just imagine Shakespeare
>holding two themes, the colonizer v. colonized theme, and then
>the farewell to the stage, and neither one is ultimately
>dominant, they just kind of co-exist. Like the whole courtly
>intrigue, with him manipulating all the characters in the
>play, is his stage elements, and then because he had been
>reading about colonization he figured, "Well, if we're on a
>remote island, why not have a native?" and then that just
>grew into Caliban and Ariel. I dunno, do you see a way to
>reconcile those two themes? But maybe it was just his
>cynicism which came with old age, where he felt some of his
>work was being harmful or misinterpreted or something, but
>then I wasn't aware of too much interpretation of his work
>until he passed away.

And as an Englishman, perhaps his fear is that, in Prospero's situation, he would act EXACTLY LIKE Prospero. So by giving Ariel and Caliban eloquent voices, Shakespeare is attempting to a)get that impluse, the "White Man's Burden" as Kipling would later call it, out of his own head and b) illustrate that above all, the men and women that England has been colonizing are, first and foremost, _men and women_.

That's my read on it.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

This alias sucks!

You suck!

there's no point in doing this from recollected impressions

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

like in the last 30 years

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082861/

They tried to make him more into an Arabesque moor, not a "black" character per se. But they did darken Anthony Hopkins's skin to make him look more Arabesque, so it's more or less the same thing.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

what i mean is, in the sources which were used for the novella which was in turn a source for shakespeare, don't depict a black or even moorish character, but an italian nobleman named 'El Moro' (the blackberry) because of the fruit inscribed on his coat-of-arms

therefore (according to where i read this) Othello became a blackface character more as a visual motif (contrasting with Desdemonda's 'whiteface' makeup) than a statement about race. To give the part to a black actor 'blurs' the issue

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

MySpace
http://www.myspace.com/chaidealo

Check out my brother's band if you have a sec.

http://www.myspace.com/romeobleu

http://cdbaby.com/cd/romeoblue

His cd is also on i-tunes. http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?p=6317794&s