Othello: Who do we side with?

[shaxper]

We tend to view Othello as (surprisingly enough) Othello's play.  It's his tragedy that unravels.  He is the good one that ultimately falls.  But I've begun to reexamine this after having seen "O" (a refreshing, though severely altered version of the play).

In a very strong sense, don't we really side with Iago?  He's the one pulling off brilliant and dangerous schemes, making us wonder if he can do it and, in many ways, we're secretly rooting for him.  It's the same for all of Shaky's Machiavels.  They're the fun ones to root for.  Yet in the other plays where they surface, they aren't competing for the spotlight with the tragic hero.  Aaron and Titus rarely get any stage time together, nor do Edmund and Lear (or Cordelia), and Richard III is simply on his own.  We get to root for them and, by the time the tragic hero gets back in the spotlight, they're out of sight.  This enables the Machiavel to be detached from the horrors he's designed.  Iago and Richard never do any killing of their own.  They are clean in a sense, so that we get to enjoy their mischief without having to attach reprecussions to it.  The product of their work often seems almost in an entirely unrelated world.  And for Edmund, who does realize what he's done, his ultimate revalation is upstaged only by the death of Cordelia.  He becomes a tragic hero of his own.


Then there's Iago, who may very well be Shakespeare's most clever Machiavel.  He also gets the most stage time outside of Richard III (who had his own play).  In contrast, we have Othello who, though beautifully spoken, is prone to uncontrolled rages, and let's not forget he's a Moore, which automatically makes him somewhat distant and unlikable in Shaky's time.  Compare him to the clever, always in control Iago who, though probably being of untrustworthy foreign descent, as probably still a degree higher than a moore.  

When Othello finally strangles Desdamona, we view this as his tragedy.  He has made this error in judgement.  Again, the Machiavel's actions are distanced from their reprocussions.  Only as a second thought do I consider that Iago caused all this.  Othello has allowed his primitive Moorish ways get the best of him.  In the end, don't we hate Othello as much as we ever loved him?  He's violated our trust and faith hin him to rise above his race and class.  Can we honestly say we feel as strongly about Iago?


Obviously, this comes from my feelings and interpretations of the play, and in no way speaks for everyone.  So please let me know how you read these characters.  I'm very curious to know how my reading holds up  


*Side note:  I don't mean to imply in the above statement that "moores" or black people are actually primitive and more prone to uncontrollable rages than anyone else.  I'm simply trying to view this play through an Elizabethan cultural lense.

[Desdemona]

I guess I have a pretty different vision here...
Maybe it's strange, but I have NEVER felt any sympathy for Iago! Of course I see he's a clever manipulator, but still, I have never really liked him, let alone 'sided' with him.
I must say that I also don't like Othello himself that much: he cannot trust Desdemona, but that's not her fault. He's jaleous and influencable and for all this Desdemona has to pay with her life. So let me ask you now: whose tragedy is it? To me it's obvious that it's Desdemona's. And therefore, I cannot but side with her. Not because she's a woman or something, but because she stays loyal to Othello; she loves and trusts him and that doesn't change during the play. Whereas Othello also loves and trusts her at the beginning, but changes his mind because of this one faul liar.
There is only one entirely good character in the play and when at the end she is strangled by her one great love, I immediately think Iago's to blame. That it's Othello's fault too, is my second thought only...

[shaxper]

I definately see where you're coming from.  I think Desdamona would probably qualify as Shaky's greatest hero, but though I feel for her profoundly, it's difficult for me to side with her since she shares so little of herself with the audience.  It's not her fault.  It's the plight of all of Shakespeare's tragic heroines, doomed to suffer silently at the hands of the all too human tragic hero.  They are always the purest, strongest, most tragic of Shaky's characters, but never the protagonist, because their very stations in life keep them from speaking up, which is usually what ends up undoing them too.  Desdamona is definately the greatest character in Othello (how did I know you'd mention her? ) and my heart reaches out to her the most, but my mind and attention is almost always with Iago.

[Ganymede]

Shakespeare's Othello in its purest form is a play about betrayal.  Which betrayal becomes the most tragic depends on one's interpretation of the play as well as which the director chooses to emphasize.  

For example, in Parker's film version of Othello (starring Laurence Fishburne as Othello and Kenneth Branagh as Iago), Iago plays a much more prominent role-- and just by having Branagh play him, he's going to get more attention.  While the movie was far from perfect, it did enable me to get into the character of Iago much more than I ever had before.  In Parker's film, Iago's betrayal of everyone who has ever trusted him (Roderigo, Emilia, and Othello) is ultimately exposed as a self-betrayal.  We especially see Iago's attachment to Othello.  Iago's betrayal of Othello, who little questions Iago's motives, mirros Othello's betrayal of Desdemona.  

I agree with shaxper that the women characters often take a back seat.  Depending on what direction you want to take, the female characters in Othello could outshine their male counterparts.  Emilia and Desdemona both die tragically by their husbands' hands and Bianca as a "loose" woman has little to protect her from the mob who springs up to carry her away.  

Desdemona, you should see the Suzman's South African version of Othello, which is basically a filmed stage production.  It emphasizes the female characters in ways that many other productions do not, especially Bianca, who is usually reduced to a scene or two.  

[Bardolph]

I don't find myself identifying with Iago in that way.  The roles of Iago and Richard get more stage time because the serve in dual roles as antagonist and narrator.  In a way, this sets them partially outside the realm of the play's internal reality.  I think that this was done to provide an identity barrier.  These roles, as well as that of Claudius and Antonio are the most evil of WS's villains.  They are usurpers.  

I agree that Desdamona stands out among WS's women.  But she is pure by nature.  She doesn't accomplish anything and has no special skills to beyond her pure nature to benefit herself or anyone else.  Paulina in the Winter's Tale is a candidate for WS's foremost heroine.  Desdamona fills the role of pure victim, like a lamb to the slaughter.  I think that part of the reason is so that Iago can be characterized as a deeply flawed charater rather than a simple sociopath.  We see evidence of this after his touching reassurance of Desdamona.  He is almost swayed from his purpose until Roderigo reminds him that he is 'all in.'  There is no turning back toward redemption for him after this reminder.  He could have borrowed a line from his kin, Richard.  "I have set my life upon a cast and I shall stand the hazard of the die."  

[Ganymede]

I agree Desdemona can be read in that way (as a lamb to the slaughter) and has been interpreted as such in many different productions.  Yet, I can't help but feel there can be more to her.  She is not an entirely passive creature.  She does defy her father and marry Othello, an action which later serves as further proof against her, reminding Othello of her ability to deceive.  Depending on the actress and the director, either version of Desdemona could work.  

[Bardolph]

But Desdamona argues persuasively that she has the right to set her own course in marriage.  It was her father's own love of Othello that made the fatal introduction and made him a frequent guest.  Desdamona doesn't engage in deception.  She elopes.  
I often wonder if WS and Anne H eloped as a result of their predicament.  The wedding bond gives us no format for the ceremony.  

I am always in favor of a range of interpretation for plays and characters.  But I'm in favor of those alternatives being supported in the text.  Desdamona does seem to me to be passive.  She doesn't even struggle at the moment before her murder.  She stays with Othello in spite of his public assault and humiliation of her.   If she were to be endowed with the moral courage of Isabelle or the dramatic genius of Paulina, WS would have written her this way.  His palette included the range of women from Desdamona all the way to Lady Macbeth.  So the concept of a woman of some substance was certainly there, if not on the pages, then certainly Elizabeth was a reminder.  

I think that we are meant to think of Desdamona as more worthy of lamentation in that she was unequipped to save herself.  She was woman enough to wed and bed, but in self sufficiency she is written as a child.  

[Ganymede]

In the very least, Desdemona was attracted to the warrior in Othello.  There are even a few lines referring to her as a warrior maiden.  But she is a woman, written for the Renaissance stage.  Yet, I believe there is room for reinterpretation in 2002.  An entirely passive Desdemona who is simply victimized and has no real volition would not satisfy most audiences today.  Shakespeare's plays are often open-ended.  Sure, Desdemona doesn't run across the stage with a sword, but depending on the mannerisms of the actress playing her, she can appear either passive or active.  In a sense, she actively chooses to trust Othello.  She makes a decision to stand by her man, which ultimately leads to her death.  Perhaps this decision could be further emphasized in a modern-day interpretation of the play.