On Tuesday's class, we covered in depth the meaning of the ending of the play and of the title "The Revenger's Tragedy" itself. It appeared very clear to us that this ending, where Vindice spits out a confession, presented a rushed feeling to the audience that seemed to come out of nowhere. We also decided that the title "The Revenger's Tragedy" presented a sentiment of blandness and expectancy when reading the play. The audience can anticipate what is going to happen next and who is going to come out alive in the end.
In accordance with this feeling of predictability when reading this play I felt as though I was unable to really connect with any of the characters. Vindice, the lead, has such an overwhelming desire for revenge that he makes himself difficult to relate to. And, when really thinking about it, he does not seem to dwell so much on his love for his murdered fiance, Gloriana. Although comical, it is pretty disturbing and awkward that he dresses up her skull to get the Duke to be poisoned...Do you think that there are sympathetic characters in this play? If so, why does the author give them the fate that he does?
Along with the strange treatment of Gloriana's remains by her fiance, the treatment of women in this play was very interesting. Throughout all of the play, male characters make snide remarks about the stupidity, carelessness, or frailty of women. Are there any other instances of this that are particularly shocking? Are there any redeeming men in this play that we can think of? Do the women of this play deserve this treatment or act in opposition of it? How does this treatment of women relate to other plays?
At the end of class, Professor Deutermann recommended that we consider who is really pulling the strings in this play. I personally think that during the play, all the characters think that they are in charge of what is going on around them. However, most are really getting scammed and tricked. Vindice, it seems, uses his power of manipulation well and usually has people following his plan. However the ending of the play really shows that none of these characters who were involved in this corruption came out on top. Only Antonio is left standing. What is the author saying about these characters, or more broadly human nature, at the end of the play? Also, where do loyalties lie in the play? Can anything good come from trusting another person?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The women in this play are treated like second-class citizens by the men with whom they interact, and I cannot recall any man attempting to redeem himself for his rude behavior. Such treatment of women is not unique to this play. In fact, you might say that this "theme" is a common attribute of many of the plays that we have read this semester. Women seem not to have been held in high regard during the Renaissance period. It is also important to note that all of the plays that we have read so far have been written by men. They were probably associated with the prevailing mentality of the day, and resultantly, women came to be portrayed negatively in their works.
ReplyDeleteFollowing up with the commentary on women in the play, it seems that women and money are continually linked together. It is both the sinful temptation of women and the lure of money that seem to be seen as the ultimate "doom" of the men in the play. After convincing his mother to give her daughter to the Duke, Vindice comments, "Were't not for gold and women, there would be damnation" (2.1.258). The honesty of his mother and chastity of his sister was literally "bought" when Vindice offers his mother money and she exclaims, "Ay these are they that enchant our sex, these are the means that govern our affections" (2.1.127). In this sense women are nothing but shallow, manipulative gold-diggers. In fact, it seems just as marriage was used as "business" in A Chaste Maid in Cheapside, being a manipulative woman is a profitable strategy. Vindice asks, "Why are there so few honest women, but because tis the poorer profession"(2.1.231)? Is a woman's chastity really her only means of establishing herself financially?... professionally?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the play was designed to establish a sense of empathy between the audience and the characters within the play. It's extremely difficult to connect emotionally when the characters are mere outlines with no personal depth whatsoever. The characters are designed as catalysts to move the play along but are no where close to exhibiting true human qualities. In relation to a play like Hamlet, where the prince is racked with psychological pain in the form of doubt, guilt, and resignation, his "double", Vindice, despite the gravity of his situation, displays nothing of the sort. He is robotic and mechanical, sharing those qualities with many other characters of the play.
ReplyDeletePrincipally, I get the feeling that the play was made the way it was in order to entertain and subtly chide the audience while mocking the cliched 'revenge tragedy' genre as a whole. Middleton took away many of the artistic elements that could have been implemented in the play and instead left it with the trite elements often found in revenge tragedies that people found the most enjoyable: an easily comprehensible plot, stereotypical characters that are about as interesting as their name would indicate, blood and gore and amplified them all.
All these parts considered, a picture of the audience as a mass composed of simpletons hopelessly foreign to any sort of intellectual drive begins to form. Middleton seems to have recognized this and made it easy for himself by putting together what I think is a relatively 'easy' play, knowing that by-and-large the audience, including upper class individuals, will still flock to it in droves to entertain their base tastes and nothing more.
In this aspect, I find it extremely contemporary and would best classify in today's terms as simply another big-budget cheesy Rambo-esque action film with no true artistically redeeming factors. The above and the Revenger's Tragedy actually makes use of many of the same techniques: simple story, massive amounts of gore, and plenty of forced suspense.
The Revenger's Tragedy actually does contain some artistic merit but by and large I would have to classify it more as a entertaining popular play less concerned with character development and empathy than anything else.
The treatment of women by other characters in the play reflects the treatment of women by the play itself. Just as characters use women as objects (of lust by Lussurioso, of an excuse for revenge by Vindice, etc.), the play uses women as plot devices (e.g. motives for revenge, moral interjections, etc.). This can, at least partially, help us digest and explain Hayley’s sense that we do not seem to connect with any of the characters. They play’s use of women and the characters’ use of women, which are predictable themselves, are so consistent with one another that our perception of the characters in general is undeniably predictable. Of course, this predictability is obscured and distracted somewhat by some of the characters’ complicated motives and extravagant methods of murder. Still, after reading so many other revenge tragedies, even Vindice’s disguise as Piato and the sudden switch to fast-paced revenge at the play’s end do not seem to catch me off guard. I cannot speak for everyone, but I think that my reading of "The Revenger’s Tragedy" is much different having read all of the other revenge tragedies we have read this semester.
ReplyDeleteAnd, in a way, this is how "The Revenger’s Tragedy" succeeds in delivering its message. As an early 17th century London theatergoer who had seen countless revenge tragedies, one could imagine feeling somewhat uncomfortable leaving the theater and not feeling a connection to any character, not being surprised by the corruption in the play. In class, when Carly put her humorous spin on Vindice’s confession and we all laughed, we displayed this desensitization perfectly. The notion that we do not connect to any of the characters, that we are desensitized to this kind of violence and corruption, may be a commentary on the dangerous effect that regular theatergoing can have on people. It does not seem, however, to be saying that this is necessarily a bad effect. Rather, it seems to be a tribute to the power that the theater can have over an audience.
Obviously, this is only one of the many interpretations of the play’s view on theater and there are many other, less dire, ways to interpret the play’s predictability.
-Liz