Professor David Peimer
Othello and Caliban: Two Very Different Outsiders

Professor David Peimer - Othello and Caliban: Two Very Different Outsiders

- Great. Great.

• So, David, I think, I think it’s, we are two or three minutes past the hour, so I want to hand over to you, so welcome everybody, and thanks for joining us. Looking forward to Othello and Caliban.

• Okay. Thanks so much. So thank you to Wendy very much, and to Judi and Lauren. Much appreciated. And just, you know, hi to everybody everywhere, and hope everybody is keeping well and safe. This is in a way bringing, today, trying to bring two things together. The one has been looking at the outsider in terms of Shylock, Barabas from “The Jew of Malta” by Marlowe and others. And together with a sense of the late 1500s, and attitudes to the other, whether, you know, the Jewish, the Shylock, the Barabas character, and the other in Othello and Caliban. And just looking at the role, you know, and interpretation of Shakespeare’s remarkable characters of Othello and Caliban as outsiders, but very different outsiders. You know, from a little bit of a today perspective. I do just want to mention that there are current debates, which we all know, whether from the, you know, different political perspectives. I really want to try and acknowledge them, but also not really engage with that. And discuss some ideas, which I hope can be taken in the spirit of, you know, mutual education and debate, and just the thoughtfulness of an awareness of his history, how things have evolved and the current situations. So in this context, it can be contentious to talk about Othello. It can also be contentious to talk about Shylock or Caliban because they are, you know, the ultimate outsiders in the Shakespeare canon. And in Othello, being a character with a, you know, with a black skin, and a Moor, if you like, Muslim as well, or North African, at least. I’m using Shakespeare’s words here, Moor, and… He’s called the Moor in the play. And I’m very, very sensitive to use of words, use of phrases, which I understand entirely as we all do.

And I hope in the spirit of honest, contemporary, you know, respectful debate that I can mention some of these ideas of, how are these characters portrayed today? Who acts them? What choices are made in terms of Othello, the outsider, who’s the Black character, obviously. And Caliban, the, in inverted commas, primitive savage, who is, you know, enslaved by Prospero. And I want to try and point to two very different kind of outsiders. And every now and then I will mention Shylock, which we’ve spoken about quite a bit, the Pacino version, the other versions, you know, as the third in the trilogy, if you like, of outsiders that Shakespeare focuses on and writes about in the late 1500s, early 1600s, quite remarkable that he would choose a Jewish character, a character with black skin, and a so-called primitive savage, again, in inverted commas, as three very central characters in three of his most well-known, would’ve become his most well-known plays. He didn’t have to, he could have written comedies, he could have written other things, could have carried on, you know, “Macbeth,” plays about Scottish, plays about whatever. Or love stories, “Romeo and Juliet,” et cetera, “Midsummer Night’s Dream.” But something I believe in him was pushing against, you know, who is the outsider in the insider culture? How are they portrayed? How are they seen in the dominant culture? What is a stereotype? How do you portray a stereotype on stage if you’ve never met a Jewish character, person, in Shakespeare’s time?

And as we’ve spoken, you know, for centuries before and after. How do you portray a Black general, in Shakespeare’s time, of North African descent, or a Moor, inverted commas, again, quoting from the play. How do you portray if you’ve never met a Black person, let alone a Black general? How do you portray a so-called primitive savage, half animal, half human, Caliban, you’ve never met or seen? So, without just, you know, using them as stock stereotypes, to, I suppose to get the audience to laugh and enjoy their own prejudice, but challenge their prejudice. And I think that he, by the fact of him choosing a couple of these characters, is really trying to push through for his own times. Well, how do we represent anybody that may be seen as other in a dominant culture? And I think that’s why these plays are so incredibly resonant today. You know, with the darkening clouds, in a way from the left and the right almost, about prejudice, and how prejudice manifests itself in democratic and undemocratic societies. And you know, there’s a certain momentum, which I’m sure we all feel, whether it’s racial or ethnic or gender, there’s a certain momentum about demonising the other, which is resurfacing in our own times. And part of this is one of the reasons, obviously the Jewish character speaks to many of all of us watching today and, you know, over the weeks. So it’s in that context that I’ll ask that if we could have a look at these two characters in addition to the Shylock one, and in the context hopefully of engaged and thoughtful mutual debate. And the overall understanding of the notion of prejudice and the other, because for me, once prejudice, once the gates are opened, as it were, in a society, it can start to gather momentum.

And we all know where it can lead to, the most extreme examples in different parts of the world at different times of history. So I want to begin with Othello, and then go on a little bit to Caliban. And the Othello starts with looking at a very interesting talk given by one or two people from the National Theatre in London where they talk about, how do you portray Othello? And the evolution of four different portrayals and four different actors, extremely well known globally, portraying the character. Before I do, just a couple of notes about the story and a couple of ideas to help suggest, just to perhaps refresh with, I don’t want to go into the full, you know, all the intricacies of the story of these two plays. But the essence, we all know that Othello in essence is a Black general of North African descent who is called the Moor in the play. So Muslim and Black, we imagine, in terms of Shakespeare’s perception in the words. And yet he, and how he rises to almost, almost to the pinnacle of Venetian society. He leads their army. He’s highly regarded as a brilliant general and will defend them against possible, Venetians, defend the Venetians against possible Turkish invasion. So he’s elevated to a position of power and prestige in Venetian society in the play. And then what happens with Iago, who is his, you know, subordinate, and why Iago goes with such extreme jealousy to poison Othello’s mind that, you know, his wife Desdemona, has been unfaithful, has committed adultery, et cetera. And we all know that’s the essence of the whole story, and then what happens.

I want to delve a little bit into the mind of the Iago, and what can propel jealousy and envy to such an extreme, and why would Shakespeare, and how does it resonate for us today that individuals do this and, you know, push jealousy so far, using in a way, partly at least, prejudice, and why this could happen. Is it, as Coleridge, we all know the brilliant poet Coleridge wrote, is it motiveless malignancy, to quote Coleridge, on Iago’s behalf, to go for such jealousy against him? Or are there perhaps other motives in Iago which are in the play, not just, you know, put in by us today? So, that’s for me the central idea. And then of course he is the Black general who is married to a white Venetian, Desdemona. And why, what is Shakespeare trying to do in these characters? And Othello, I mean, Iago has to destroy Desdemona, he has to destroy Othello. Is it because it’s never enough to be jealous? Is it how hate can really work when it’s pushed to an extreme? Is it perhaps because Iago is also a careerist? And let’s never forget that Othello does not promote Iago. Othello, in contemporary language, blocks Iago’s promotion. And Iago does not get the promotion he feels he deserves. And that’s the beginning of the jealousy. That’s the beginning of all his attacks, if you like, putting ideas into Othello’s mind, of just not believing Desdemona that she has been faithful and that she’s committed adultery, et cetera. So, what does it take for a character to take down another? What does it take for a character to push back, in contemporary language? How Machiavellian?

We’ve spoken about Machiavellian, and I know Phil and others have given, you know, talks on Machiavelli. How Machiavellian, is Iago actually? End justifies the means, use of fear, calculate. How much he despises people, maybe more than hates them. Is it maybe more about despising? He was passed over for promotion. We have no other real motive in the whole play except that one. Is that enough to trigger such an extreme reaction in Iago? Is it enough when we look at our own lives, you know, in whatever work context we all live in? You know, passed over for promotion, worked really hard in this, in the play, in the military, et cetera, et cetera. And along comes somebody who all the Venetian elite seem to adore and pass the one guy over. What happens with, again, the revenge idea, which we’ve spoken about with the Jew of Malta and the revenge idea of Shylock, of “The Merchant of Venice?” And revenge plays were extremely popular in Shakespeare’s time. Would certainly get the audiences. There’s a sense of, Othello believes that the state, the law, and if you work hard enough in Venice, and the law and the state will protect, but ultimately, no it doesn’t. In the same way Shylock believes that the Venetian law will ultimately protect him. It doesn’t. So there are all similarities and huge differences. Shylock wants to go for revenge to a degree, and ultimately has to realise that he would always be an outsider, that he can never really belong to the insider culture. To use Hannah Arendt’s wonderful two phrases. The outsider is always either the parvenu or the pariah. The pariah on the host nation or the host ethnic group, or the host religious or ethnic or nationalist group.

The pariah who may be accepted for a while, or may be used, whether for monetary purposes or Othello, ‘cause he’s a superb general. But always ultimately when the crunch hits is going to be seen as a pariah and an outsider. But what is the character who’s defined as the outsider try and do to belong, to fit in? And Othello reaches almost the pinnacle to really fit in. I mean, a general, he’s leading the army to protect Venice against possible Turkish invasion. He can’t really get much higher. But he then is set up to fall by Iago and what Iago uses to poison his mind. So Othello believes in the work. The law of Venice will protect him, all sorts of other things. How he can fit into the system. But underneath it, he has married a white woman. Underneath it, he is still from North Africa. And Iago knows this. And knows that the Venetians ultimately, if the crunch were to come, would not accept him, let him belong. And then he becomes the Parvenu, in Hannah Arendt’s phrase. The upstart made good, you know, which Shylock, is an upstart, you know, Jewish character, who makes good financially and you know, the Venetian aristocrat want to borrow money from him when it suits him or when they need it. Here Othello is brought in 'cause he’s a superb general. He’s the outsider brought in to lead the army to protect Venice. But what’s going to happen after the war? What’s going to happen if the Turks are beaten? What’s going to happen if the Turks don’t attack either? Will Othello keep his position? Will he be demoted? Will he be kicked out? Will he be still seen as a foreigner? Will he continue to be lauded as the hero, you know, who has who has saved Venice from invasion?

And Iago knows all of this. And I think Shakespeare alludes to all of it. And Iago knows that he’s the parvenu, the upstart made good, and also the pariah. And ultimately when when hard times hit and the crunch comes, he can mobilise prejudice in Othello’s own mind, to destroy Othello. And that perhaps is the difference. That Iago as the character is used, I think, to instil doubt, lack of self-confidence, lack of self-belief in Othello’s own mind about himself. So he destroys himself from within. And it’s a very different role for the antagonist to play against the protagonist, compared to the Shylock character, which we’ve spoken about before. And what he uses is the fact he starts to talk about him, and his race and his Blackness and other things, you know, and that he can’t really trust, he can’t really rely on the whites and the white wife, et cetera, et cetera. And he just sows the seed of racial hate and doubt. And in that way it can work its own poison, if you like, inside the mind of Othello. This is obviously not only mine, but quite a few other contemporary scholars’ thinking in the interpretation. And it’s a fascinating difference of how to destroy the outsider from within the insider culture, as opposed to the Shylock character, who’s destroyed as the outsider by the Venetian aristocrats, who ultimately cannot accept one of their own being bad, or having a pound of flesh literally cut out, or being the baddie. Ultimately they have to protect one of their own, of the inner circle who belongs. Antonio in the Merchant of Venice. They gang together to protect one of their own. Here, it’s the other way, right, it’s a different approach I think.

It’s make the outsider have so much self doubt that he’ll end up destroying himself by killing his wife, et cetera. Okay. It’s so clear. I mean, Iago talks about the old black ram in the play. These are phrases from the play, the old black ram, the thick lips, et cetera. The sexualized, you know, body with a black skin is utilised by Iago to say words to others and to Othello. I mean, that’s how, why would he use that towards Othello? Why, if it’s not to plant seeds of at least challenge or self-questioning? Why would Othello have believed one person? Why would Othello only believe one and not check the facts, not check with anybody else, but only believe, you know, trusted honest Iago all the time? Why does he not speak to another five or six others who’ve been in the military with him or, you know, of a similar rank? So I think he’s an outsider and an insider. And I think Iago, I propose, plays on this. Because when one’s playing on the blurred boundary of the outside and the inside and you’re not sure which you are when. But you want to believe you’re in the inside, you’ve reached the top of the tree, you’re a general in the army of Venice, and along comes something just to niggle and plant all those seeds that maybe you’re not so, you know, you haven’t quite reached the pinnacle.

Then why, is Othello just naive? Is he naive to believe one person in Iago that Desdemona’s had an affair? Is he naive to believe that he can belong to the insider culture in Venice? Is Shakespeare setting up that although he’s this military brilliant general, is his tragic flaw that he has self doubt? Is his tragic flaw that he’s naive, and that small things can plant seeds of, to, if you like, scratch at his confidence? None of this is answered in the play. But we can mine such rich territory in these plays to try and understand more and more. You know, what does happen when one reaches that inner circle but is not actually of the nobility that that inner circle really is? I think a modern interpretation would probably say that Othello, if you like, in the language, has internalised the tragic flaw. That he’s taken in the prejudices of the society around him. Is that too simple? Is that too simplistic? Is it real? Isn’t it? James Baldwin used to talk about, shape the world so that it sees you as you want, rather than let the world shape you so that you see yourself in the way the white world wants to see you. In “The Fire Next Time” and some of these other writings. So how does the outside world see Othello in the James Baldwin idea to constantly shape the world so that it sees you how you want it to be seen? Not how the outside world can use stereotype and prejudice to make you see yourself as the way they want you to see yourself. And I find that a very contemporary, interesting idea, which can come into the notion of Othello. You know, and how eventually it can wear one down, where the prejudice can subtly go in over time.

In a way it’s bizarre, or it’s brilliantly imaginative that Shakespeare would choose such a character as Othello, and give him such a flaw. Is he too honest? Is it really a play on honesty? That Iago is constantly, you know, pretends to be so honest in scenes with everybody, especially Othello? What do we know? Iago calls him the lascivious Moor. So the use of actual Othello’s real name is hardly used in the play in the same way as Shylock’s actual name is hardly used, is called the Jew, or the dog or the cur. Here it’s the Moor, the lascivious Moor, and the black ram, and other things, with the white ewe, E-W-E, in the play. And Rodrigo also is one of Venetian, you know, the elite of Venice society. And he calls Othello an extravagant and wheeling stranger. I mean, stranger, the outsider or the foreigner, an extravagant and wheeling stranger. Yes, he’s the general we’ve made him the general, yeah, et cetera, et cetera. But why is Rodrigo given such a… what I’m really pointing to is that he’s still seen and defined as the outsider. We go back to Jean Paul Sartre in “The Anti-Semite and the Jew.” It’s… The Jew only exists because of the anti-Semite. In other words, the Jew only exists in Sartre’s idea because the outside world frames and shames, it frames and names the person. And it’s seen through the cultural frame, not the human being. And Iago, Iago says, one of his great speeches. “But for my sport and prophet, I hate the Moor.

And it is thought abroad that twixt my sheets has done my office. I know not if be true, but I for mere suspicion in that kind will do as if for surety. I hate the Moor, but for my sport and profit.” Well, why profit? If it was purely sport, and he purely wanted to have fun by destroying Othello. No other reason, just because he’s jealous and he hates for whatever reason, why profit? Because he’s been overlooked for his job. So, these all, what happens in the play? That the Venetian rulers, they give him even more power. He’s a favourite of the elite of Venice. They send him to Cyprus to defeat the Turks. And then he’s offered to rule the island. And he’s even converted to Christianity, Othello, which bolsters his connection to Venetian society even more. And seen as a sort of exceptional outsider while he’s riding the wave of military success. But what happens when that starts to fail? And how is it left open for somebody like Iago to come in? And is Shakespeare perhaps saying that even the outsider who reaches the top of the tree almost, can still be brought down at any moment? Well, anybody can be brought down of course when they reach the top of the tree in politics, in business, in life, in war, in anything. But to be you, but prejudice can be mobilised to bring them down. And to me, this is the extraordinary insight of Shakespeare. Because it’s foreign birth which will prevent him ultimately from achieving, you know, the top flight, if you like, in Venetian society. So the outsider status, both benefits, ultimately dooms him. We know that Venice habitually hires mercenary soldiers and foreigners to lead their military campaigns, govern foreign territory.

But it also works the other way around. Because once they’ve achieved the military victory, they can be dismissed. They can be demoted. They can even be deposed or, you know, kicked out of the country. So it’s a constant, it’s walking a bit of a razor’s edge of precariousness in a way. It’s always this outsider-insider play, even if the character achieves the top. Iago is a climber. He’s born Venetian, and he’s a respected member of the military. And his friends who are part of the nobility and the upper elite of the Venetian society. But he is not of the nobility. And that’s an interesting point in the play, that Iago is not of the nobility. He can’t be because by birth he’s not. So how’s he going to advance himself? How’s he going to climb the ladder, the ranks in the Venetian military? And achieve military power and status and wealth? And when Othello denies him the career advancement, that’s when he starts to plan revenge. Is he a frustrated climber? And he can’t get in because he’s not nobility by birth. So his main way in is through Othello, who blocks it, stops it. So all of this is thrown up. It’s not ultimately defined by Shakespeare. But I believe enough seeds are planted. So we have these characters created, and Othello actually says, “For I am Black, and have not those soft parts of conversation that chamberers have.” Well, why should Othello, that I have not those soft parts of conversation that chamberers have? But the reason he gives is, for I am Black. So he gets to the bottom of it that because of his race, he’s always going to be the outsider. He starts to see more and more how the outside world will always define him in Othello’s eyes.

He doesn’t say that I do not have the soft parts of conversation because I’m, you know, I’m a rough guy, I’m a general, I’m a military, which is who I am. But the reason is because he’s Black. Does he start to doubt that he’s entitled to have the white woman, Desdemona? Does he start to doubt from there her faithfulness and so on? All of these questions I think are thrown up by the play. What happens ultimately to the assimilation idea? Who can assimilate? How far can one go? Interestingly, Othello is a favourite of Brabantio, who is part of the ruling nobility elite in Venice, and is invited for dinner and other things, but, he becomes unacceptable to Brabantio when he gets the idea that Othello might want to marry his daughter Desdemona. His services as a general are lauded and needed, but as a son-in-law? It’s a whole different ballgame. The Duke obliquely denigrates Othello because of his race. The Duke says, “Your son-in-law is more fair than Black.” Well it’s such a phrase of perverted prejudice. “Your son-in-law is more fair than Black.” So what is it then? Fair, white, noble, moral, pure, all of that stuff. Superior morals and beliefs, and sophisticated and cultured. And Black, all the other connotations with that. So do we have the ultimate, again, of the superior, inferior, the noble character who is flawed when the buttons of insecurity are pressed, as Othello himself says, you know, “For I am Black.” And that is why, and they’re always going to see that first.

The world screams at him, who he is. And for him to define himself in that world becomes a tough ask, tough call. Okay, I want to show, in terms of this debate. I want to show, this is a clip from the National Theatre. And it shows four great performances of Othello. And the question is, how do you act it? And the first one is Lawrence Olivier. and I’m going to just to share honestly with everybody. And I hope again, in the spirit of honest debate, and in the context of trying to understand our prejudiced works in society, and as well, you know, how we represent it. Olivier is blackfaced, is given black makeup on his face and arms in playing the character. And then we go through the National Theatre talking here of four different characters up to a brilliant Black actor, contemporary actor, Adrian Lester. So we see four different characters, and they’re talking about the interpretation in the portrayal to show historically how, if you like, this Othello character has been portrayed on stage. Because as important as trying to understand or debate our own interpretation of the character and prejudice. How do we understand, how do we approach portrayals? And I hope by showing something of the shift of these four, we can see an evolution of our stereotyped perception by a society of theatre makers, the National Theatre, being highly respected globally. And their honest look in this little clip, which I’m going to show you now.

CLIP BEGINS

• It seems to me that looking at the four National Theatre productions, that the move is from Othello as the isolated grand performance by the actor at the peak of his career to an understanding of the part embedded in a domestic cultural military circumstance where Othello is not the exceptional part, but part of this culture of the play that is being performed. So that with Harewood and with Lester, you really get a sense of Othello in a world, as opposed to looking at Olivier and Scofield as the exception.

• For Olivier, race wasn’t an issue. Race was an interesting factor in the play. And he chose to make it kind of paramount. The result of that was that I know some Black actors who saw the play and were appalled by his imitation of stereotypical behaviour. And I know other Black actors who saw the play and were inspired to become Shakespearean actors because of their sheer admiration for what he did.

• It took him hours to put on his makeup, and he put it on layer on top of layer, on top of layer, and the story is that between each layer, he buffed himself with a silk handkerchief to create the shine that was evident when he played the part.

• There was was John Dexter. What he did was to strip away everything around Olivier to allow him to give a traditional classical performance in terms of its scale, even though the interpretation was shocking. And of course the famous moment in the interpretation is that Othello’s final speech, “I’ve done the state some service,” was seen by Olivier as an act of self-deceit. That this is a man who refuses to recognise his guilt. The Scofield production was directed by Peter Hall. In the Olivier, the production was set in a traditionally renaissance setting, and Scofield came in as the star. Again, he approached it as a vocal performance. And if you look at the reviews, you get a sense that he may have been rather ungainly and a little awkward and ill-at-ease physically. On the huge Olivier stage, people hadn’t really worked out a way of doing Shakespeare on the Olivier yet. What he did was he made Othello an elderly man, very much at ease with the Senators of Venice, not at ease with anybody else. Very much alienated. Very much nervous and distant.

• David Harewood was the first British Black actor to play this part. What was so painful and so visible was the virulence of Iago’s racism. It was palpable, and stood against the wonder of Desdemona, who didn’t see race at all. Claire Skinner played Desdemona, tiny actor, little actor, surely must have been cast with a view to her almost only ever coming up to his chest. And when she got angry with him, pummeling that chest, which was like the rock of Gibraltar over the top of her head, he’d killed her. She was laid out in the bed that was very close to the audience, but at that point he picked up the body, and she was clearly dead, her head lulled back. But he talked to the body. He spoke to the body, and the lines are about the knocking at the door and should we let them in, but as he was holding the body, and this doll was almost speaking back in the gyrations, it was incredibly painful.

• In a very early meeting that I had with Nick, I said, “It would be great if we don’t make Othello isolated on stage. Because people think that if you are racially isolated, then you are isolated.” Othello is West African, he can still be isolated and still have Black people around him. Let’s actually do a 21st century version of this play and let’s make it about character and let’s make sure we above all look at that. In the play, race is simply a tool that Iago uses to manipulate. It’s no more than that.

• I would agree if Heitner and Lester say that this is a play that is beyond race, because in fact, that takes us back to what I think was the play Shakespeare wrote in 1604 before the institutionalisation of commercial slavery in the transatlantic slave trade inferiorized the Black man. What they show in a production that I think is beyond race, is that in fact the real dynamic is that men hate men, and men destroy men. So the tropes of Blackness are really just ways of achieving the destruction of man on man.

• The one thing that this production draws a line under for the, you know, for the following sort of performance future of this play, it draws a line under that and says, no, it’s not about race, he’s not a representative of Blackness. He’s a thing.

• Okay, so what I find fascinating is that, I mean, I know a little bit Tony Howard from the University of Warwick and both, you know…

• It seems to me that looking at-

• And Carol Rutter. They’re fantastic scholars and thinkers about all these questions that we’re looking at. And in this little compilation here, we see only over the last, you know, 30, 45, 50 years, from Olivier all the way through to Adrian Lester, you know, trying to go from white man playing it with black makeup to, you know, a Black actor who’s talking about a post-racial world. And David Harewood playing it very much as Iago, playing on all the racial stereotypes to press his button and bring him down in himself. What they all note is how Othello destroys himself from within. But what these more recent productions are how race is used to undermine him from within, his own self-perception, if you like. And, you know, how is it used in Shylock? How’s religion used there in the portrayal of it as well? And, you know, during these lectures, had the opportunity to look at Ian McKellen. Sorry, Patrick Stewart, as well as David Suchet, you know, Jewish, and not Jewish and Christian actors as well in their portrayal of Shylock. I’m going to show one, just a very brief few seconds of the Olivier production. And what I’m going to, this, what I’m going to show is what caused very recently a pretty esteemed American professor at an American university to lose his job. And without getting into all the debates of all the aspects of it, but to try and give a context, because I really believe, if we don’t understand history, if we don’t understand our own history, we are, you know, if we all know the phrase, we will repeat it. No question. Whether it’s of the holocaust, whether it’s of hate or prejudice or whatever, all different things. And the stereotypes can only be perpetuated, unless we become aware, and I think it’s so much of what we’re all doing here. I don’t want to sound preachy, I just want to, just open the little door for a crack in, you know, at the debate. This is to give you an idea of what Olivier was doing.

• She says enough. Yet she’s a simple bawd that cannot say as much. This is a subtle whore. A closet lock and key of villainous secret. And yet she’ll kneel and pray. I’ve seen her do it.

• My lord, what is your will?

• Pray chuck! Come hither.

• What is your pleasure?

• Let me see your eyes. Look in my face!

• What horrible fancy-

• Some of your function, mistress! Leave procreants alone and shut the door. Cough or cry “hem” if anybody come, your mystery, your mystery, nay, dispatch!

• Upon my knees, what doth your speech import? I understand a fury in your words, but not the words.

• Why? What art thou?

• Your wife, my lord, your true and loyal wife.

• Come, swear it! Damn thyself! Lest, being like one of heaven, the devils themselves should fear to seize thee.

• Yeah, we’ll pause it here.

• Therefore be-

CLIP ENDS

• It’s just to give you a tiny test of what that is compared to, you know, looking at David Harewood, the Black British actor and Adrian Lester trying to portray it. David Harewood, very much the interpretation was Iago using racial prejudice to undermine Othello from within and in the culture. And then Adrian Lester talking about it, to use the phrase of Adrian Lester, the actor, it’s in a post-racial way. So these choices about, all about interpretation, obviously, of the play and how to portray characters, how to act them. And they’re important. Because I think they reflect attitudes of the time. This reflects an attitude of the time. It’s okay for a white man to put on black makeup and act a Black character like Othello. You know, decades later, it’s not okay at all. So that is the debate. That little clip I just showed, and some others, were what caused, as I said, very recently, a very, very interesting and brilliant American stage theatre designer and professor to have his job challenged and lose it. So it presses huge buttons, as we all know. I want to bring this out in the spirit of honest, reflective educational discussion and debate, and hope we can respectfully discuss it in some way. Okay. I think the points are made quite clearly. It would be the same as, who can act Shylock? How do you act Shylock? And we can imagine the same things, you know, nose, hair, sideburns. You know, the red hat, all the stuff of the time of Venice. Or in a very contemporary way, or like we saw with the actors in rehearsal of Patrick Stewart at the REC and David Suchet. Okay, I’m going to move on to Caliban, who for me is the other, the third of the triumvirate of great outsiders in Shakespeare, which remarkably, 500 years later, these plays still provoke such incredibly profound discussion and real thought.

And how theatre endlessly mirrors society, and the morals and values of a society in different times, and in different ways. And it can spark such passionate debate and discussion in a society. Caliban is, just to refresh for everybody. Prospero is driven from Milan by his jealous brother who usurps and becomes the ruler of Milan. And Prospero, the ship, and he has magic powers. Anyway, ends up on this island. The island has only one inhabitant. And he goes with his daughter Miranda. And on the island’s only one inhabitant who is apparently half savage, half human. Half animal, half human. And it’s Caliban. He only has 400 lines in the entire play, but has become such a resonant character in today’s world. Unbelievable for again, a play written, you know, 500 years ago. Shakespeare’s last play. So why is he choosing an outsider? Why is he choosing the master, Prospero, shipwrecked, magic powers, to go onto some island where there’s one inhabitant, and there’s his daughter, then of course eventually Prospero is rescued, and everybody they forgive, and Prospero’s allowed to go back to Milan and, you know, take back his rightful position. But why write that? He doesn’t have to, as his last play. Why choose these final characters? And the last speech of Prospero’s alludes to the idea that he knows that, you know, it’s enough of the writing. And he goes back to Stratford the last few years before he dies. Now, what’s interesting is the first piece I’m going to show is Caliban, the great speech of Caliban, who by the way has the far more poetic beautiful phrases in “The Tempest” than Prospero or any of the other characters have.

So the so-called deformed black savage, quote unquote, and primitive has by far the most beautiful, stunning, poetic language in the entire play. And here it was shown in the 2012 London Olympics, a part of the opening. Danny Boyle was the director, director of “Trainspotting,” “Slumdog Millionaire” and other films. So he’s the main director of all, you know, the whole creative team choose. And Kenneth Brenner gives the great speech of Caliban’s, which is one of the most beautiful speeches of Shakespeare’s entire oeuvre. But he’s dressed as a Victorian gentleman speaking to other Victorian gentlemen and gentleladies. What an extraordinary twist, to take the figure of the defeated slave who is ruled by Prospero, who’s the master. And Caliban the slave, the so-called primitive, the so-called savage slave, in “The Tempest,” and in 2012, flip it completely. And the portrayal is one of the great Shakespearean actors of our times, Kenneth Brenner, in a Victorian top hat, in a Victorian costume, in a Victorian setting in the opening of the Olympic games of 2012, is given the outside Caliban speech.

CLIP BEGINS

• Be not afeared. Be not afeared. The isle is full of noises, sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not. Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments will hum about my ears, and sometime voices. But if I then had waked after long sleep, will make me sleep again, and then, in dreaming, the clouds methought would open and show riches ready to drop upon me, that when I waked, I cried to dream again.

CLIP ENDS

• Okay, that’s the opening of the Olympics a few years ago with Brenner giving it this grandiose, this almost Lawrence Olivier approach to acting. “The isle is full of noises, sounds and sweet airs that give delight. Sometimes a thousand twanging instruments will hum about my ears. And sometimes voices that if I had,” et cetera, et cetera. It’s a beautiful, stunning speech. It’s by far the greatest speech in that whole play. Given to Caliban, who is the so-called deformed, semi-illiterate slave. And here he’s performed in a Victorian gentlemanly way with this great grandiosity of a Victorian character. And the Olivier, almost the Olivier approach to acting. I’m trying to understand and tease out, all the cultural connotations of stereotype, play with a slave image. But now the speech has been appropriated entirely to talk about the island, obviously of England. And entirely out of context I know, but the fact that it can be done in 2012, take it out of context and give it to this actor and this character in this way is an extraordinary leap, and suggests so many ideas I think, about stereotype and prejudice and what you do with it. For Caliban, the most important thing is freedom.

Caliban says at the beginning of the play, he’s the outsider. Well he’s the insider because he’s the only inhabitant of the island. And he was due to inherit it from his mother, Sycorax. So he’s due to be the ruler of the island, even if he’s the only citizen and the only person. It’s his island. Prospero is the outsider who’s come in, and in very contemporary interpretations, colonised the island, and turned Caliban into his colonised slave. Caliban is not a slave before. He may be half animal or half human, have different colour skin, et cetera, but he’s no slave. And he isn’t seen as permittable to any of those qualities. He is the only inhabitant in citizen of the island. It’s his, he rules it. So Prospero becomes the master, Caliban the slave. Prospero was a master or a ruler, if you like, Milan first. But here he takes over ‘cause he has the magic powers. So he’s the insider who is enslaved. Caliban. Why would Shakespeare choose that? Character goes out from Italy, colonises the country, and enslaves, and makes him do all the work, fetch the wood, make the fire, bring the food, cook, et cetera. Does all the slave manual labour. Caliban says, “This island is mine. My Sycorax, my mother, which thou takest from me. This island’s mine.” And that phrase is repeated. It was mine. You took it from me. More important. You know the great scene in “The Life of Brian?” “Well, what have the Romans ever given us?” “The aqueduct.” “Okay, fine. What else?” “They’ve given us sanitation, and the aqueduct and education and roads and, you know, and law and order.” “Fine.

What else they given us?” Okay, here it’s, fine, do whatever you want, Prospero. But what Caliban wants is freedom. This island’s mine. You took it from me. “And yes, I loved you because you taught me so many,” this is quoting Caliban, here, “And then I loved you, and showed you the qualities of my island. The fresh springs, the brine pits, barrenplace and fertile. But curse was I that I did so. I was mine own king. And here you sty me in this hard rock, whilst you to keep from me the rest of my island.” And Prospero calls him a devil on whose nature nurture can never stick, I will plague him. And Caliban is tormented from within because of being framed as the slave of Prospero. Caliban says about himself. “Sometimes I feel, sometimes apes that mow and chatter inside me. And I’m all wound up with adders, who with cloven tongues do huss me and hiss me into madness.” Extraordinary lines. He’s tormented from within. “Sometimes like apes that mow and chatter at me. All wound with adders and with cloven tongues do hiss me into madness.” But I wasn’t mad before. I was okay, I was human. I was a character on an island, I was a citizen here. But when I’m framed by the outsider who’s become the coloniser, this is what happens. Prospero calls him lying slave, and then comes the crunch. “Thou dost seek to violate the honour of my child.” Because Caliban wanted to sleep with Miranda. Which echoes I think Othello obviously, and Desdemona.

And that’s the turning point for Prospero. Whoa. That’s when the game ain’t on anymore. As it was for Brabantio in “Othello,” with Desdemona, Brabantio, the father of Desdemona. See he says, Prospero says, “Thou didst seek to violate the honour of my child.” Caliban. “Oh, that I would’ve done, I would have peopled else this isle full of Calibans.” And that phrase has echoed through the centuries of slavery, and oppressed people or people put down or colonised. It’s rifled all the way through. Derek Walcott’s brilliant version of “The Tempest” set in the Caribbean and many, many others all over the world. You know, it’s freedom. And why can’t I people the isle with Calibans? That’s what he wants. So when it turns on the sexual, the whole story flips, in the same way as Othello and Desdemona. And Miranda, Prospero’s daughter says to Othello. Prospero’s daughter Miranda says to Caliban. “Abhorred slave, savage. Thou wouldst gabel like a thing most brutish. I endow thee with words, vile race.” Shakespeare’s aware it’s race that’s the issue. It’s racial, or it’s religion. For the Jewish character, okay, it’s race. And same with Othello, it’s race. Miranda says “vile race, and a thing most brutish. I endow thee with words.” And Caliban’s great line, which is echoed through the centuries of slave, and many people enslaved or savaged, if you’re brought down by dominant people. “You taught me language. And my profit on it is I know how to curse. The red plague rid you for learning me your language.” So yes, you taught me your language, my profit on it is how to curse. You taught me everything, you gave me everything, but you denied me freedom. So what happens, I think Shakespeare’s ultimately come to understand human nature.

Fine, you can give many things and everything, but what if you deny freedom to a people? And you have, you feel you’ve civilised and, you know, delivered many, many gifts and all sorts of things of, you know, good civilization and progress and prosperity. You know, from, against diseases, to running water, to sanitation, hospitals, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and on. But freedom is taken away. It’s going to be the eternal clash in human nature. And I think that Shakespeare’s final play says a hell of a lot about his understanding of human nature and the master-slave, or the boss, the employer-employee, or the boss and the worker, et cetera. All these dynamics of hierarchies of power. And how they play out in small groups and in much larger groups in societies. And ultimately how prejudice is mobilised. To undermine a person from within a character, or a larger group from without. Constantly played at, you know, vile race, outsider, foreigner, all these words echo through Shylock, echo through Othello, and echo through Caliban. Here also, and towards later in the play, Caliban has a little song which is, “Get a new man, freedom. Heyday, heyday, freedom, freedom. Heyday, freedom.” It’s about freedom in the end, and how, take it away, what happens to the society and the people who do it? Othello is given the apparent freedom. He’s made the top of the tree.

As the outsider welcomed in, apparently. But all it takes is a certain, what I spoke about, to pull the character down, but in that case, do it from within. Because the person isn’t born as part of the ruling elite of that culture, or even the ability to really get there. So, always going to be little niggles of doubt, perhaps. Iago, do the trick. Pull the guy right down. Yeah. At the end, Caliban does not want to go back with Prospero to Milan. He’ll be just a performing, you know, creature if you like, in a circus. Rather have his freedom. And even if it’s island doesn’t have all the other stuff, at least he’s got his freedom. And I think the tension is set up in the play, by Shakespeare obviously, and for us to decide where we stand in all these debates. And just to say at the end, I want to show a little clip from Julie Taymor’s remarkable production. She’s an incredible director, and this is a very contemporary production where Helen Mirren plays Prospero. So the female plays the so-called traditional male character Prospero. And you’ll see some clips. This is the trailer of the movie, very recent movie. She did “The Lion King,” and she did a brilliant film version of “Titus Andronicus.” She’s an amazing director. And this is from the trailer of “The Tempest” by her.

CLIP BEGINS

• A saw spirit perform to the point. The tempest that I bade thee.

• I boarded the king’s ship.

• [Prospera] Every cabin I flamed amazement. At first sight they have changed eyes.

• [Miranda] Do you love me?

• [Ferdinand] Beyond all limit.

• [Prospera] They are both in either’s powers.

• Misery equates a man with strange bedfellows.

• Looking for business, governor?

• [Caliban] Hast thou not dropped from heaven?

• [Stephano] Out of the moon, I do assure thee.

• [Antonio] Caliban!

• [Caliban] This island is mine!

• [Prospera] With this, be sure tonight, thou shalt have cramps.

• [Antonio] Here lies your brother, no better than the earth he lies upon.

• [Sebastien] Draw thy sword. And I, the king, shall love thee.

• [Prospera] I will flame them all! Even to roaring.

• [Ariel] I have made you mad.

• [Prospera] We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.

CLIP ENDS

• Okay, I wanted to end with this because it’s, again, mirroring society that Helen Mirren is playing for the first time, as far as I know, a woman playing the character of Prospero. You know, there was a master on the island. And you can see the Caliban, this island’s mine. Freedom, et cetera, everything we’ve spoken about. And perhaps just to round off with having looked at these three remarkable characters, Shylock, and Barabas from “The Jew of Malta.” And Othello and Caliban here. It’s perhaps worthwhile to take a step back, and look at the whole bigger picture. Prospero at the end of the play, and many people obviously think this is Shakespeare writing about himself. “Now my spells are all broken, and the only power I have is my own. Release me. I have no spirits left. No magic to cast spells. And my end is my despair. Just as you’d like to have your sins forgiven, indulge me, forgive me and set me free.” It’s Prospero, but everybody or many people thinking that it’s Shakespeare speaking through Prospero 'cause that’s his last play. And to give the little phrase at the end that the Prospero character gives. “We are such stuff as dreams are made of. And our little life is rounded with a sleep.” Amazing two lines which say so much and make us feel so much.

Those remarkable writers being able to crystallise it so brilliantly with such brevity. And the final idea of how to portray these characters of Prospero, male or female, how to portray Caliban, well, you could see the face with the makeup, you know, half darkened, half whitened. But obviously excessive makeup. But given such powerful physical presence. How to play Othello. How do you cast? How do you deal with all these questions of race and gender and stereotype and image from religion to race to ethnicity? Because if we accept theatre in a way mirrors a society at different times, it’s mirroring so-called values or challenging or questioning them at least. And I think that’s for me what I, there’s no easy answer. I just think it stimulates endless, fascinating debates, especially in our times now when we are all facing these questions. So thank you very much everybody and thanks for being here.

• [Wendy] David, are you going to go through some of the questions?

• Yeah, sure.

Q&A and Comments:

Q: Rosemary. Doesn’t Portia win a black suitor?

A: Chooses the wrong cast, could say, let all of his complexion choose me, so absolutely. Yep. Thanks Rosemary.

Mitzi. Seems unlikely Othello was Muslim. Otherwise he would not be fighting the sultanate, which was a Muslim area.

Quite possible. He is called the Moor in the play. And from what we tried to understand, the meaning of the word Moor in those times. You know, certainly North African. So the assumption I suppose is made of black skin and Muslim. But it could be variations of that, absolutely. Mitzi.

Ted. I think there was a fear in the Christian world of Shakespearean times of other races, in Shakespearean times other races, and a latent anger in these minorities that’s easily provoked as a tool to self-destruct and conflict. Yeah, it could well be. But let’s remember Shakespeare’s time also is, Europe is going out, it’s exploration, and discovering the world and conquering and finding resources in other parts of the world, you know, the ships are going out. So it’s a fascinating time of both in a way, of reaching out to the world, and how that reflects back within. How to set up a society who’s superior, who’s inferior, how to justify colonising, enslaving, who’s the worker, who’s the boss, et cetera.

Ted, sorry, confirm his supremacy, yeah, the majority. And hasn’t changed much in the world of populism. Well I think it’s a version of what we see today in populism, absolutely, played out. Dionne. The green-eyed monster. Yep. As Caliban is called, the green-eyed monster. Absolutely. And it would fit in with Shakespeare’s time of all stories coming back, you can imagine, to the pubs and the taverns and, you know, in London in late 15, early 1600s. Stories coming back and sailors to and fro and, you know, I think it was Goethe’s “Great Trinity,” Goethe’s phrase, you know, it’s all about war, war, trade and piracy, the trinity of of human society. So yes, and they would come back about the green eyed monster and new animals and peoples and creatures and whatever that they’d seen in different parts of the world in the early 1600s. And you can imagine an excitement, especially people going to a play, never heard of it, never seen anything like what the stories of sailors are telling them. It’s a bit like, I guess for us today, imagining, you know, characters on Mars or other planets, whatever. Erin. I was lucky enough to stand in the guard to see Olivier, Maggie Smith in 'Othello.’ By the end she was covered in the makeup.“

Yep. Janet. "One of the major challenges is the politicisation of the universities. Here in the US and political correctness has degenerated debate. What’s acceptable and unacceptable.” Yeah, I mean I think we have to be honest and we have to look at how, because if we accept theatre does, thank you Janet, mirror in a way moral morals or values and whether challenging or pandering, whatever, accepting the values. But theatre does try to play with that. And to see what was happening 40, 50 years ago, how were they portraying a Jew, how were they portraying an Othello, a Black character, how are they portraying Caliban, a so-called deformed green-eyed monster, and how is it today and so on. You know, from political correctness, you know, and from both sides, from the extreme left and right, absolutely. You know, and I gave the example of this guy in America who’s just lost his job.

Q: Martine. “Do you think the contemporary focus on alleged racism or antisemitism in Shakespeare is an example of presentism? An attempt to project our own contemporary views of the Renaissance, of Shakespeare?”

A: Sure, I think that’s a very interesting idea. I mean obviously Shakespeare wouldn’t have used, known these ideas, but he knows it in another way ‘cause he uses words like alien, foreigner, citizen, but race, vile race, you know? So he’s very aware. And I don’t know how new or not these words were for his times. In Julius Caesar’s diaries, fascinating. 'Cause when Caesar is conquering England, or the Gauls, Caesar talks about the barbari. But in Roman times, every other person apparently, I think anyway in Caesar’s time, or Caesar’s diaries. Every other who isn’t a Roman is a barbarian. Wherever they come from, race, nationality, wherever, et cetera, they’re all barbarians. And of course the Romans are the most civilised and most cultured and sophisticated of them all of course. But it’s interesting that they’re all lumped together as barbarians, barbari, from the Latin. And he talks about the English going around almost naked with blue war paint on, and how barbaric and et cetera. So the word barbarian and barbaric was the word of Caesar’s times 2000 years ago. So are we projecting? Aren’t we projecting? Yes, we have to. I think we have no choice. We are of our own era. And I think what’s amazing that these plays of a couple hundred years ago can still be interpreted, pulled apart, thrown together to give us fresh ways of looking at ourselves. Not only Shakespeare’s time. I don’t think they’re done just to be sort of period pieces of history, these plays.

Q: Jack. “Isn’t one interpretation being that is an allegory of the European conquest of the Americas?”

A: Absolutely. So is “The Tempest” about the conquering of the Americas? Is it about the conquering parts of Africa, parts of Asia, et cetera, absolutely. Karen. Yeah, I would agree. You know, and I think it’s not by chance that he chooses an island. That’s why it’s extraordinary that Kenneth Brenner gives the speech about the island, dressed as a Victorian, the ultimate Victorian gentleman in 2012, the Olympics. And then you see Julie Taymor, that’s Caliban, and many other versions that we’ve seen, “Prospero’s Books,” fantastic film by Peter Greener. You know, you see another version of the so-called deformed slave. All different ways to portray it. What’s going to press buttons, what isn’t. But I think that it’s a lens through which we see ourselves. I don’t think it’s only, because these plays are endless, that we can, you know, almost mine them endlessly. And I think the point is how we see ourselves and what it’s reflecting.

Marcia, thanks so much. Hope you’re very well up in Canada with everybody. Othello also has stunning lines. Absolutely. When Othello walks in and one of the others, one of the soldiers raises the sword, we’re not sure if to attack him or not. And he says, you know, “keep it up, otherwise the Jew will rust it.” Forget the exact line. It’s a stunning moment of poetry to assert his authority and rank.

Okay, Sue, thank you.

Thank you, Janet. “I think Shakespeare saw the dual aspects of himself in Prospero, successful, powerful creator, and Caliban, ego and id.” Yep. I think it could well be, you know, that he was the creator of magic, and, you know, because it’s all just in the end, imagined stuff on an empty stage, on a space called a theatre. I mean, it’s ridiculous. As my daughter said when she was four years old, and I took her to her first play, and I thought she was going to be very scared. It was about Scrooge. And I said, “Listen, You may be a bit scared. It’s about Scrooge. He’s not such a nice guy. This and that.” She was four. And she said, “I know it’s all play, play, dad.” And chuffed off. Okay. I kept quiet. Okay.

Elaine. Ariel was a spirit. Yep. Thelma, thank you, thank you, Caroline and Ernest. Oh, okay. Can we possibly play Prospero at Stratford? Great, Dawn, Stan, thank you. Uta, that’s great.

Thank you. Peter. “It’s not acceptable now for a white person to play Othello. But a non-Jew can play Shylock.” Well, that’s the eternal debate. And that’s part of bringing this together, that showing you that clip of Tony Howard, his colleague talking from the University of Warwick, talking about those four productions over the last half century at the National. And I mean, do you need to be Scottish to play Macbeth? It’s nationality. Do you need to be Italian to play Romeo? Et cetera, et cetera, one can go on about ethnic, about ethnicity, race, religion, gender. What I want to do here is open the debate, open the discussion. 'Cause that’s what, you know, casting Helen Mirren is doing. That’s what having a look at, obviously trying to understand Olivier in his own time in that context and reflections on that. Or Adrian Lester playing it, or Patina playing, Patina, Italian American playing Shylock. And so we go on.

• I think David, we need to move. What’s really happening now is, you know, the narrative has moved so to the left, and people are so afraid. I’m sure that, you know, soon we’ll be moving to a much more moderate, hopefully, narrative. But it’s again, yeah.

• Sorry, no, Wendy, I agree entirely. I think it’s gone so far to the left. And so scared. I mean, I know so many fellow people teaching at universities, not only in the UK but elsewhere. Terrified.

• Yeah, because their jobs are at stake. Because of their jobs. Exactly.

• Yeah, their job, very recently couple years, two or three years ago,

• It’s totally outrageous. Yeah, outrageous, outrageous.

• And people are-

• And he’s a brilliant- Yeah, yeah, so exactly that. Hopefully we can definitely move beyond it because it’s censorship as you were saying earlier, Wendy. It’s censorship from both sides. And it’s, you know, for me, it’s unacceptable, especially in an educational context.

• [Wendy] Well, it’s a catch-22 because those people whose jobs are at stake are fearful of putting themselves on the line. So it really has to be those people who, you know, who will not be economically, you know, subjected to firing and loss of income. You know, it’s really become, it’s become… It’s become a real, you know.

• It’s become a real dilemma and a real issue. And it’s absolutely on many campuses around the world. There’s no question about it. And I think it is a kind of, a kind of internal sort of censorship, if you like, without a doubt. And I know so many people everywhere in universities and in the arts, in theatre and everywhere else who are so scared-

• [Wendy] Especially hijacking. It’s being hijacked.

• Yeah. And very scared. So as a result it becomes quite tame and becomes quite predictable, you know?

• [Wendy] Oh, I don’t think so. I think it’s become, you know, I think it’s become abusive and bullying.

• Oh no, I agree. Sorry, but the people, I meant the people that you said, scared of their jobs and everything.

• Yes, exactly. They’re capitulating. They are capitulating to the abuse. Anyway, David, listen, thanks a million, I just want to thank you for an outstanding presentation. And we look forward to seeing you next week.

• Okay, Wendy, thanks so much. And thanks to everybody. Really appreciate it. Okay.

• [Wendy] Have a good rest of the week. Thanks, David.

• [Judi] Thanks, everybody, bye-bye.

• [Wendy] Thanks, Judi, bye-bye.

• [David] Thanks Judi, yes.