MovieChat Forums > Titus (2000) Discussion > Why is this Shakespeare's worst? I liked...

Why is this Shakespeare's worst? I liked it better than King Lear...


Reading about this play and film has opened my mind to the knowledge that most scholars don't enjoy the play, and that a large group don't believe shakespeare wrote it. Why is this? It's VERY similar to the structure and themes of King Lear and I thought it was well done (based on seeing Taymor's film). Especially the character played by Harry Lennix, he was one of the most chilling and evil characters I have ever seen. So whats the deal? It's sure as hell a lot more visceral than much else written in Shakespeare's day.

reply

I can't comment on the authenicity of the play's authorship but I too enjoyed it, but not more than King Lear :) The characters were more polarised than usual and although Shakespeare often uses humour it was incredibly macabre in Titus A. Aaron played by Harry Lennix is the second most evil; Iago being the first.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

reply

This is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays and I like it much more than King Lear.

Clark Kent + Lois Lane 4ever
DC Can Suck It

reply

I'm not sure since I am not a historian however since it was Shakespeare's first and bloodiest tragedy. I have read in my complete works book in an intro that it is said to be the most tasteless and the characters aren't as developed when compared to say of course King Lear or other famous tragedies. I wholeheartedly disagree since I love this movie and King Lear for different reasons.

reply

I'd say that it has more in common with Corionalus, which was recently adapted by Ralph Fiennes in what (in my opinion) is a better "modernization" of Shakespeare than Taymor's. It doesn't have nearly as many annoying gimmicks, for one thing.

Titus Andronicus is interesting because it shows Shakespeare learning the ropes, it's a study with themes that he recycled into many of his later and better-known plays. It's also darkly funny in ways that his other tragedies are often not.

reply

Because what you have here is a revenge play, and not a whole lot else. There really isn't a whole lot else in the play itself other than a Roman General who has the opportunity to steer the empire in a right and just direction, but fails to use his own personal judgment, and instead defers to the letter of the law and tradition when offered the crown.

Because of that he has to go off the deep end to try and make up for his lack of good judgment at the opening of the play. In short, he's an idiot, and the empire nearly crumbles for it.

Taymor call's it Devere's best. Er, it has a lot of dramatic moments in it, but it never fully explores the themes it touches on.

reply

This is my favorite Shakespeare play. It gets a bad rep because idiots are scared of a little fake violence.

reply

The questioning as the whether Shakespeare wrote Titus or not was called into question by scholars due to the input George Peele had. Act 1 Scene 1 is believed to be entirely Peele's hand - though it is debatable as to whether it was a collaboration or a reworking/development of Peele's earlier work by Shakespeare. Shakespeare's hand in Titus is undeniable - especially in the lighter, or more black humoured, parts of the play - the only question is how it was contrived between the two.
The content also made some question whether it was his work. Most believed it was too brutal to have been so.

As for its popularity;
Titus was seldom performed until the 20th century and found its audience after WW2. Audiences in the 1600's were unaccustomed to the contents and couldn't relate to the violence. After WW2 audiences sadly become all too awear of the evil that men can do and found that themes and violence were plausible in this age which made it seem relevant for the first time.

I hope this helps a little. Titus Andronicus is probably my favourite of Shakespeare's work. I am only just now watching the film for the first time though.

reply

You guys are all wrong. While Shakespeare was alive, this was his most popular play. This was his "biggest hit" if you will. As to the questioning of who wrote it I believe all of Shakespeare's plays are rumored to have been written by someone else. It has been inferred that the real Shakespeare may not have even been able to write and his entire family was completely illiterate.

reply

If there's anything "wrong" with the play on a technical level, it`s the lack of the kind of in-depth characterization and sophisticated plotting seen in his later plays. The characters in TA are put into a very linear, fast paced plot.

Shakespeare's big specialty was giving us the stuff that happens between the obviously significant plot points. In many of the plays, we are with the characters in their day to day lives. Epic characters become ordinary people.

Hamlet has a vast web of subplots and side characters, Romeo and Juliet has bits like (to give one of many possible examples) Lord Capulet staying up all night frantically supervising the preparation of the wedding feast.

On a thematic level, I'd argue that Shakespeare doesn't develop the moral hypocrisy of Titus and the other supposedly "good" Romans as well as he should have. Titus` successful revenge and Lucius being swept into power as the guy who will finally clean up this town was presented as a clear victory of good over evil completely smoothing over the interesting grey areas and contradictions in the initial setup.

After all, who chopped up whose child first?

Criticisms of the violent content are silly. There are plenty of old plays, poems, folk tales, myths and artwork depicting similar grotesque material. If you're in the mood for a bloody melodrama, it's far more fun and better written than Marlowe`s The Jew of Malta, for example.

reply