I am not sure if it’s just me, but is Antony becoming like Cleopatra?  Just by the reading I’m pretty sure we are all in accordance with the fact that Antony is not the most responsible or resolute character that we meet in Antony and Cleopatra, but in my opinion now he’s becoming  overtly lacking in realm of leadership and the skills that come with the title.  Antony is listening to reason even less than Cleopatra, who we see talk all over everyone in the play.  Antony is becoming like Cleopatra in this sense, and by not listening, he blurs his vision when making decisions about this war.   In the scene where they decide to duke it out with Caesar at sea he needs a soldier, A SOLDIER, to inform him that taking on Caesar at sea is a sure defeat for Antony and Co.  Antony, there really should not be a guy in the play that goes by “soldier” rather than by an actual name telling you what is best in your war.

I think Scarus was absolutely on point when he pretty much blamed Cleopatra for the defeat at sea, making her the jinx to Antony and his crew that Jessica Simpson was to Tony Romo and the Dallas Cowboys a few years ago.

If you are a member of team Egypt in this play, however, I think this is the point that you should start praying that Antony and Cleopatra become free agents and Enobarbus takes over.  Enobarbus and Canidius can tell that Antony is not living up to his potential as a leader.  Canidius even tells us that Cleopatra is the one wearing the pants when he responds this to the soldier who claims to think he is right for not wanting to take Caesar on at sea, “soldier, thou art, but his whole action grows not in the power on ‘t.  So our leader’s led, and we are women’s men.” 3.7.85-88.*

Enobarbus also goes on to tell us that his love for Cleopatra is a detriment on his ability to make quality decisions.  He says, “and I see still a dimunition in our captain’s brain restores his heart.  When valor preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.” 3.13.248-241.*  Enobarbus is pretty much saying that Cleopatra’s love for Antony is in an inverted relationship with his ability to reason.  So while Enobarbus does not want to leave Antony’s side, he is kind of telling us that their love is an expense to everyone but them.

I almost forgot I was going to write about Octavia, because she is so easy to forget.  I wish that Fulvia had half the lines that Shakespeare gives to Octavia; but instead we get to hear from the tool instead of the strong woman in this play.  Octavia is a pawn, she seems oblivious and seems to need to be explained every little detail so she’s not lost in translation.  Her I-don’t-get-it kind of nature forces me to ask myself sometimes, does this woman even know she’s in Rome?? She is merely an instrument to keep Antony and Caesar from one another’s necks.  Once we see that the peace cannot be maintained either way, submissive Octavia just takes a backseat, and does not speak one more word for the entire act.  Octavia, you’re a Caesar for god’s sake, act like one!  I sure hope that in Acts 4 and 5 she will redeem herself in  my eyes, because as it stands now, she and Antony are like neck and neck for the most foolish characters in this play.

* = the line number may differ in other editions of this play.

Posted by Ms. Taniqua B.

I’m not sure if it is just me, but within any of Shakespeare’s romantic tragedies I get a bit annoyed/angry with the two lovers. In Antony and Cleopatra, Antony starts off the play by falling in love with Cleopatra. Now, this would be fine if Antony took one second to realize, “oh wait, I have a wife, I control one third of the Roman Empire, I’m betraying my fellow comrades and Romans, all for the satisfaction of claiming to be in love with an actress/prostitute name Cleopatra.” But, Antony does not really think things through now does he? In fact, feel Antony is thinking a bit too much with his other head. (haha?)

Like Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra rush into things way too fast. Maybe it might be because we live in modern times, but doesn’t Cleopatra find it weird that Antony is still married and confessing his love to her? Granted she does get upset about the whole situation, until Antony feeds her with some political nonsense that somehow relates to the reason why he abandoned Rome and his wife for Egypt. All I know is once a cheater, always a cheater. He is not going to mourn your death, and he WILL easily get over you Cleopatra. Girl, check yo self.

But I digress.

What bothers me about the whole situation with Antony and Cleopatra is the fact that Antony is abandoning Rome and his wife for what he “thinks” is love. When Cleopatra asks Antony about his abandonment, he simply states;

“Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch Of the ranged empire fall. Here is my space. Kingdoms are clay. Our dungy earth alike. Feeds beast as man.”

And I thought George Bush was a crappy leader. Thank god Antony doesn’t rule one third of the U.S. with that statement.

There is something about Antony so freely abandoning his Empire for Alexandria and Cleopatra that makes me dislike his character right from the start. I’m all for love, but you have responsibilities Antony, and those are to your Empire and your wife. Which brings me to his wife’s death. A tear, a sniffle, or even a whimper would have been nice. Not only does Antony so freely get over his wife’s death in just a few pages, but his comrades Philo and Demitrius also pass judgment upon how little Antony cares for his homeland.

All-in-all the beginning acts of Antony and Cleopatra have me disrespecting the two main characters because of their obscured moral values, and Antony’s lack of loyalty to his country and late wife Fulvia. At the end of Act 1, Antony departs Egypt claiming the distance will not affect his love for Cleopatra. Yea…right. I guess we will see the truth behind all of this nonsense between these two “lovers” as the play goes on.

Desdemona and her father’s relationship don’t seem to be the only complicated relationship in Shakespeare’s plays. I feel that in most of his plays, father-daughter relationship was anything but normal or usual. For example in Tempest, it was rather strange that Miranda stays with her father on an island for twelve years and her father deprives her of social company of anyone other than himself. One theme that seems to mark most of his plays is the selfish motives of the father who wishes to get something through his daughter but does that mean they don’t love their daughters. I doubt that. We cannot make that claim or can we? It appears that in all plays, the fathers did care as much about their daughters as fathers of that time would allow themselves to. We shouldn’t compare them with fathers of today because now due to increased knowledge fathers tend to be far more gentle and demonstrative than they were before. But the feeling of deep love and care was always there. Othello where Brabantino’s relationship with her daughter is often discussed. Brabantino wants Desdemona to marry someone of their own status. So what’s really wrong with this? Most fathers even today would want their daughters to choose a man who is financially and socially their equal. So I feel that we cannot consider Brabantino anything out of the ordinary because he loved Desdemona with all his heart and it is her elopement that eventually leads to his death due to a broken heart.

Throughout the first few acts of Othello, the audience is presented a two different depictions of Othello.  One, presented to us by Iago is that of a warlike brute.  The other, presented to us by the senators of Venice is that of a mighty protector and an invaluable member of society.  What is not so apparent at first is that Othello suffers from a serious lack of confidence despite his many accomplishments.  It is this lack of self-confidence that I believe leads to his downfall.  He does not believe he is worthy of Desdemona, which makes it easier for him to fall into Iago trap.

The lack of confidence I am referring to begins to reveal itself in Act III, Scene 3.  At the beginning of the scene, Othello has complete faith in Desdemona.  He says, “Nor from my own weak merits will I draw/The smallest fear or doubt of her revolt,/For she had eyes, and chose me.”  That’s what he says when Iago’s in the room anyway.  Once Iago leaves Othello begins to reveal his doubts.  But it sounded to me like he was doubting his value more so than his wife’s virtue.  He says, “Haply for I am black/And have not those soft parts of conversation/That chambers have, or for I am declined/Into the vale of years-yet that’s not much-/She’s gone.”  In my opinion, Othello has taken his own inner feelings of self-hate and turned them outward, aimed directly at Desdemona.  At this point, Othello’s doubts have overtaken him.

I have conflicting feelings about basically all the characters in Shakespeare’s Othello (except Roderigo, he’s just pathetic) starting with Othello himself. The general is a victim, certainly, but to what extent is Iago fully to blame for his fall? If another man were subjected to Iago’s cruel tricks would the end result have been the same? Or would he have been able to remain composed and see through the charade? The play begins with Iago and Roderigo depicting Othello as a savage and a beast, someone completely uncivilized. He is a stereotype and a caricature: The Moor. But, the audience is finally introduced to Othello, and we meet a composed, eloquent, and loving person that does not resemble Act 1, Scene 1’s depiction in the slightest.

However, Othello’s character is continuously degraded as his suspicion and then conviction of Desdemona’s infidelity grows. His skills as an orator fall apart, he sees no reason, and he is reduced to a quivering incoherent mess on his knees in front of Iago in Act 4, Scene 1. He hits Desdemona then ultimately murders her, becoming the beast called jealousy personified and living up to Iago’s initial painting of him as a brute and an animal. But, after realizing that he was fooled by Iago and killed his innocent and loving wife under a false belief, he returns to the masterful orator that we see in the start of the play where Othello was able to not only move the audience, but the other characters with his words.

With all the talk of nature within the text, one can’t help but wonder, which of these personalities is Othello’s true nature? Did Iago see something inside Othello that made him recognize the beast he describes in the beginning of the play? Did he somehow know Othello had rage and jealousy in his nature and that this was his Achilles’ heel, that Othello would be susceptible to his trickery and deception if he hit him where it hurts: his marriage? No one can doubt Othello’s civility and sincerity in the first acts of the play. But is this part of his behavior something that he learned to adapt after years of being in Venetian society? Can this polished behavior be undone, leaving the “real” Othello in it’s wake: the warrior, the beast, the murderer.

Or, perhaps the Othello we see plead his case after Desdemona’s father accuses him of witchcraft, the Othello that calmly escorts his wife back to bed after upsetting news from the state instead of smacking her across the face, and the Othello that tells Lodovico, Gratiano, and Cassio to “Speak of me as I am”, is the real Othello. Maybe his fall is meant to be a testament to Iago’s powers of deception: his ability to make people see what he wants them to see, thus forcing them outside their nature rather than having them fall into their true one as the former view suggests. Iago does seem to perform an Inception-like mind-F by planting a seed and letting Othello cultivate it himself, making him believe it was his idea and thus poisoning his view of Desdemona in a stronger way than just straight-up slander.

Or, maybe it is pointless to think about nature in the simple way that the play’s characters do. A man is neither simply a brute nor a scholar; he can encompass the entire spectrum of human temperament, even in the short span of three days. A woman is neither a virgin nor a whore. She can express a healthy sexual appetite without warranting the title of adulteress and being condemned to death, as in poor Desdemona’s case. The only character that seems to grasp this is Emilia, who is an enigma herself. She proposes to Desdemona that the moral lines are blurred when a woman’s infidelity is caused by a man’s promiscuity or abuse and basically encourages her to find someone other than Othello when he proves himself to be a jealous psychopath. However, she is blind to her own husband’s vices and is in fact the cause of that whole handkerchief fiasco that Othello sees as proof that his jealousy is justified and ultimately undoes them all, so who is she to talk right?

All in all, this play is filled with duplicity, and “nature” talk, and its a debacle of epic proportions. I find myself even hating my favorite character, Desdemona, for her love and loyalty to Othello even as she is dying by his hand (also confusing is her three-part death/re-death/resurrection plus speech plus death … again … but that’s besides the point) after showing such independence and ferocity in her choice of Othello over her father.

If my blog post seems like it’s a mess, it’s because my thoughts on this play are. Help me?