Now there’s a scary headline if I’ve ever heard one.  How bad is the world, exactly, if you’re defining it in Iago terms? The New York Times spins off the recent badly reviewed Othello, by Peter Sellars, to look at who Iago is and what he’s always meant. Focusing on the themes of “transparency” versus “secrecy”, the article takes  a number of interesting turns.  The new movie “The Invention of Lying” comes up, as does Michael Jackson’s death, David Letterman, and of course, Obama.

The moral agony of “Othello” is, in fact, that its bone-chilling villain is the only character who is in possession of the play’s truth. Through his machinations, Iago demonstrates that directness and honesty are, indeed, not safe — and in fact never are — because the overly transparent victim sometimes invites the predator’s manipulations and so becomes complicit with him.

Yikes.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/weekinreview/11siegel.html?_r=1

http://screencrave.com/2009-10-09/roland-emmerich-on-his-shakespeare-film/ More info about disaster-king Roland Emmerich’s new movie about the Authorship question.  Turns out that it’ll be a “political thriller” about Edware de Vere.  I like how the interviewer starts by asking “Marlowe?” rather than Bacon.  Of course, the answer when someone says “Bacon?” is “I’d love some, thank you.” More “disaster” jokes are just too easy.  But man, the Oxfordians are gonna be in seventh heaven when this comes out, aren’t they? “Pssst!  Dude, this guy dies before Macbeth is written.  How we gonna get around that?”

“Time machine!”

http://themoderatevoice.com/49070/afghanistan-is-no-young-hamlet-stage-play-dr-krauthammer/ I always stop and read when I see Shakespeare references mixed in with politics.  Here we have somebody comparing Obama’s needed decisions about what to do in Afghanistan with the melancholy prince of Denmark.  I believe the point of the comment, and I need to read more, is that much like our beloved Hamlet, Obama can’t seem to make a decision to save his life. Don’t know whether that’s an accurate assumption or not, I have to read both articles.  But I wanted to get the link up so I didn’t lose it over the weekend.

No, seriously, that’s how the article starts:

Macbeth, Othello, and King Lear walk into a bar… what happens next? Director Sam L. Linden ’10 and his cast have worked to answer just that question. The Hyperion Shakespeare Company’s newest production, “Seven Deadly Sins of Shakespeare,” has created a user-friendly version of Shakespeare’s works in a short, action-packed montage of sins and laughs.

Doing a “sampler” of Shakespeare scenes isn’t particularly new, but the canon offers so much to choose from it’s fun to see how people put different scenes together to make a connection.  Here, the director’s going with “7 deadly sins”. But is it off target in its interpretation, or perhaps just a little too shallow?

Whether it is the wrath of the Macbeths, Iago’s envy of Othello or Falstaff’s gluttony, each scene will present the audience with a collage of human flaws and malicious intent.

Wrath of the Macbeths?  I’m pretty sure that’s the first time I’ve heard wrath as a defining word for that play, rather than ambition or obsession.  And is gluttony the best word for Falstaff, or just the easiest? The Seven Deadly Sins, and yes I had to go look these up, are commonly summarized as:  Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride. Which Shakespeare characters would you put in each role? I’m immediately tempted to associated Lear with wrath, but I recognize that that’s for his “come not between a dragon and his wrath” comment. Still, though, his temper does have something to do with his problems.  Given the choices, is Macbeth better defined by greed?

Ok, when I saw a Roman Polanski story turn up in my newsfeed filters I assumed there’d be some reference to his 1971 Macbeth. Nope.  In this case it’s a Shakespeare In Love reference.  It seems that producer Harvey Weinstein was at the forefront of recently circulated Hollywood memo of support for child rapist Roman Polanski.  Weinstein was also the producer for Shakespeare in Love. But wait!  The connection is deeper, the article suggests.  We Shakespeare geeks know that Shakespeare In Love won the Oscar for best picture in 1999, beating out Saving Private Ryan, which many people still scream is the greatest tragedy in the history of that particular award.  So be it. Gary Thompson argues that Weinstein is typical of Hollywood’s growing insular nature, where it no longer cares about anything but itself:

…its story of a theater troupe outsmarting censors reminded all of the writers and actors who vote for the Academy Awards how wonderful they are.

He then goes on to suggest that this is Weinstein’s method – make movies that flatter actors and writers, because they’re the ones that vote.  They don’t want to be reminded of WWII, they want to be reminded of how wonderful they are. I don’t know if I agree or not.  But I do know that the next time the topic comes up I’ll have a point to make. 🙂 http://www.philly.com/dailynews/features/Gary_Thompson_Why_Hollywood_doesnt_get_the_Polanski_thing.html