Kent Thompson Interview

The interview with Kent Thompson was very interesting and really made me think about how many decisions go into making a play. Throughout the interview I was able to link many of his responses to one of the six basic element of theatrical production.For example, Thompson explains the usage of light in 3.3. Iago literally moves into the dark when he drops hints to Othello about Cassio, this emphasizes Iago’s dark side and manipulative ways. Thompson’s decision to use the octagon stage incorporates two of the elements, acting and spatial relationships. By having the characters closer to the audience it brings them to life and the audience cannot avoid the conflict and tragedy. The interview also goes into detail about specific props and costumes used and why Thompson made the decisions he did. Of course I knew a lot of work went into putting on a production, but it made me realize how each decision will affect the outcome of the play and what impression it had on the audience.

The connection between the O.J. Simpson story and Othello was thought provoking. It’s amazing that news and current events can affect the popularity of a show that has been around for so many years. As the Thompson said he believed that the audience came to see a similar story written 400 years earlier, which is a concept that saddens me. It shows that although we have made strides in civil rights, racism is still something that affects our culture and everyday life.

Othello

Reading Othello was somewhat difficult at first. The old English was hard to understand, but once I got into the story I really enjoyed it. It amazed me how manipulative and conniving Iago was. He was truly a puppet master controlling the actions of everyone around him. The way he orchestrated his whole plan to get back at Cassio was quite impressive. It was frustrating to watch each character fall into his trap. They all had such trust in him and even if someone questioned what he was saying he always had a response prepared. Even the way he talked to each character was well executed. For example, he didn’t just tell Othello that his wife was cheating on him; Iago planted thoughts of jealousy into Othello’s head and had him come up with the idea of cheating on his own.

It annoyed me how Iago’s wife Emilia did not find out why he wanted the handkerchief. The placement of the handkerchief was the last piece of evidence Othello used to confirm that his wife was cheating on him. If Emilia had possibly spoken up that her husband had taken it then Desdemona may have not been killed. Reading the truth come out at the end of the play was saddening. The fact that one man’s words and actions created so much chaos and two deaths was very unfortunate and made me wish that they had thought twice before listening to Iago.

Tragedy

Growing up I learned about different genres of literature, but after reading Aristotle’s Poetics, and Arthur Miller’s Tragedy and the Common Man, I realized I only grazed the surface of what each genre entailed. To me a comedy was funny, a drama was exciting and emotional, and a tragedy was sad. According to these two writers there is specific criteria that makes a piece of literature a good tragedy. I thought it was interesting to see how each of these writers broke down the components of tragedies, and they changed the way I will read tragedies in the future.

Aristotle listed six elements that are a necessity to tragedies, which are, plot, characters, verbal expression, thought, visual adornment, and song composition. When I think about literature I always just assumed characters were a necessity therefore, I thought it was interesting when I read, “a tragedy cannot exist without a plot, but it can without characters.” After thinking about this statement it made sense because without a plot no message or outcome will be presented to the reader. As he said a tragedy is meant to portray a life, an action, which can be done through the plot and strategic structuring of incidents.

Miller’s comment that stated that it was a misconception that tragedy is associated with pessimism stood out to me. As I stated before I believed this misconception. His explanation as to how tragedies are optimistic is interesting and completely makes sense. The tragic hero’s refusal to stay passive to regain his status or dignity is honorable and optimistic. The next time I read a tragedy I am going to look for the optimism in the literature.

Medea

The play Medea was full of conniving and vicious, acts and thoughts. I couldn’t believe what great lengths Medea would go to seek revenge on her husband. Her plotting and scheming scared me. At the start of the play I was thinking about how separation and remarriage has been apart of our society for centuries. I find it interesting that this tragedy’s initial conflict is based on a husband leaving his wife, and many of today’s movies, books and plays are based on a similar plot. While reading I thought to myself that the words Medea was speaking seemed awfully familiar to me and then I realized it reminded me of the movie The First Wives Club. Similar to Medea, the women in this movie were left by their husbands for younger women and sought revenge for the pain and humiliation their men had caused. One of the women even used her daughter to find out information about her husband, which seemed comparable to Medea using her children to get on Jason’s good side.

The comparison stopped in my mind as soon as I read that Medea was willing to kill her own children to induce pain on her husband. This idea seemed insane to me. I thought it was interesting to see how Medea was willing to kill her children to get what she wanted whereas Creon was willing to die for his daughter because he was so upset she was killed.