As
I was reading "Othello" for the individual play assignment, I found
myself becoming increasingly more interested in the character Iago. And while
it may be a stretch to describe this captivation as sympathy, something about his
particular brand of villainy was appealing, and I had to ask myself why.
Now,
it wouldn't be the first time audiences have fallen for a good psychopath story
as a blacker means of escapism, but that answer alone didn't satisfy me, nor
did explanations that Iago is simply the "worst" villain. What
exactly makes him the true villain of
Shakespeare, beating out the likes of Edmund in "King Lear" and Lady
Macbeth in "Macbeth"? I tried to analyze why audiences love him, and
I came up with three reasons, culminating in his invulnerability to moral
principle.
Most
obviously, Iago appeals to audiences because he's funny. This humor comes from
his clever diction and dramatic irony, so it's definitely a darker form of
comedy a la Joker in The Dark Knight ("Very poor choice of words . .
."), but it's nonetheless funny. For example, in answer to Lodovico's
inquiry, "How does Lieutenant Cassio?", Iago answers "Lives,
sir" (4.1.244-5). This is funny because the audience knows that due to
Iago's manipulations, Othello is actually planning to murder Cassio, so the good
Lieutenant may not be alive much longer. But Lodovico and Desdemona are both
ignorant of the true import of Iago's dialogue. Iago appears almost frustrated
in some parts at the others' blindness as to his true meaning, but can't help dangling
these sinister little hints in front of the audience, which makes him seem malice
incarnate, but also provides some much-needed comic relief.
Another
source of Iago's appeal is his understanding of the difference between honesty
and transparency. I was reading a New York Times article titled "How IagoExplains the World," and was fascinated by the author's argument that
"transparency and secrecy are not simply opposite. Instead they interact,
each reinforcing the other." By taking advantage of Othello's "free
and open nature," Iago succeeds in using false shows of sincere emotion to
manipulate him (1.2.442). In other words, Iago uses opaque transparency to show
a fraction of the truth, but that fraction of the truth is meant to control
someone else's perceptions; he's not being genuine, but he is being selectively transparent. Modern audiences watching him do
this can easily relate it to our current political and entertainment climates, so
the whole process rings, ironically, more true than ever.
 |
| Paint, created by Micah Cozzens |
But
I believe the true catharsis, or purging of emotion, occurs because Iago has no
sense of sanctity for moral principle, integrity, nobility, or true beauty, and
so he is invulnerable. While the other characters succumb to their emotions, he
plays logically and dispassionately. We see ourselves in Othello and Desdemona,
victims of our misguided hearts and souls, which are so easily plagued by
suspicion and senseless affection. But we long to be Iago because he's free to live
for the gratification of his intellect, without the remorse that makes us the
rest of us painfully, painfully human. By arguing "I am not what I am," he rejects the oft-quoted phrase of Christian deity, the great "I AM," making himself totally inhuman, a type of Satan. And who can ask for a better villain than the devil himself?
Something you could mention as you talk about Iago dangling these hints is how his fellow characters cannot seem to grasp the manipulations. Instead, the comment on his honesty quite frequently. 2.1.45 and 2.3.355 are a few instances that I can think of off hand (or pull up in my annotated notes, you know).
ReplyDeleteI thought your comparison of the Joker and Iago was brilliant. I have never read the play, but in my opinion, the Joker is one of the most interesting villains in all of pop culture, so I'd love to see a Shakespearean version of this well-known figure. If you choose to explore this more, here is a good blogpost to look at (https://whoisthemanbehindthecurtain.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/playing-the-villain-parallels-of-character-traits-in-iago-and-the-joker/). It talks about how both the Joker and Iago can be seen as Machiavellian (cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics or in advancing one's career) villains due to their use of rhetoric. Or, if you want to take more of a literary criticism route, this article is good, as it brings postmodernism into the argument (http://filmint.nu/?p=17822).
ReplyDeleteI never read the play but if Iago is really like Joker then he is evil just to be evil, so I looked up this: https://newpaltzshakespeare.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/iagos-motivation-pure-insanity-and-evil/ and it talks about Iago's motivations and why he does what he does.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting analysis you have here. You're incorporating a character analysis with an almost genre analysis by connecting it to the necessary role of catharsis. "Lust for Audience: An Interpretation of Othello" on JSTOR is a good article that does a quality job of a character analysis of Lago. You could use it as a valuable resource for a rebuttle arguement.
ReplyDeleteI like your NY Times article and the media you created as ways of exploring this play and character. Some excellent suggestions from Riley and Kevin, etc. Worth looking up. You are sneaking up on an interesting approach or claim for analyzing Othello (the play) by focusing on Iago. However, it seems as though you are saying catharsis comes by identifying with Iago, the villain, as the tragic hero rather than Othello himself. That would be a strong and engaging claim, but hard to prove, also.
ReplyDelete