Van Gogh in Taiwan

I'm very pleased to note that my last film, The Eyes of Van Gogh, has been picked up for distribution in Taiwan by International Productions Association Asia. The film will also be seen at the Taipei exhibition "Van Gogh: the Flaming Soul" for its three-month run. This exhibition will display an overall of 98 pieces of artworks by Van Gogh, including 77 sketches and 21 oil paintings. Most of the exhibits are from the Kroller Muller Museum of Netherlands, famed for its collections of Van Gogh's paintings. In particular, "Flower Vase with Thistles," Van Gogh's later period creation, is borrowed from Pola Museum of Art in Japan this time.

An artist making art

As the author of both the stage play "Stranger on the Earth" as well as the writer/director of the film "The Eyes of Van Gogh" I made extensive use of these extraordinary documents. Vincent's letters are profound, brilliant and fascinating, offering keen insights into the world in which he lived as well as laying bare his soul. Although this new volume is beautiful, the original English translation issued many years ago serves the purpose just as well at a lesser cost, so there is no excuse not to explore them. Almost as remarkable is the story of how they came to be saved, translated and published through the efforts of his sister-in-law, a woman for the ages. For more information please visit www.theeyesofvangogh.com.

Polanski's Supporters

I am both independent and progressive in my thinking and I applaud your article in the Weekly standard on that sleaze bag, Roman Polanski. He and his fellow sleaze bags in Hollywood are one big reason why I've never wanted to be part of the culture [I use the word loosely] that these people represent. The garbage that these people produce is only matched by the quality of those who produce it. The tactic of making the victim the guilty party, [13 no less] is typical and beneath contempt. I keep thinking if the victim had been the daughter of one of Polanski's supporters they would feel quite differently, but frankly I have my doubts. Since the enslavement and brutalization of women is one of the greatest problems in the world today, the overt support in the celebrity community for this miserable creep, Polanski, is despicable and inexcusable. Thank you for a most excellent article. Cross Posted to The Weekly Standard

From Mad Painter to Mad King

I'm grateful to Joe Montague of Riveting Riffs for the interview.

Letters of Vincent van Gogh

In this article, the author Waldemar Januszczak is certainly correct when he refers to van Gogh's letters as "the greatest cache of writing about art left behind by any artist".
For more information go here.

Gauguin and van Gogh in Arles

Director’s Notes

In my film The Eyes of van Gogh, Paul Gauguin’s arrival at the Yellow House in Arles is the happiest day in Vincent van Gogh’s life. He will now be able to work with the man who, among living artists, he regards with the highest respect and esteem. He’ll have a friend and companion in art. From this will come his greatest dream: the realization of the School of the South. From this day forth, he believes, everything he’s dreamt of is possible.

To prepare for Gauguin’s arrival, Vincent has been working day and night with little sleep or food. He’s determined to show Gauguin as much good work as possible. All of Vincent’s hyperactivity and nervousness are focused completely on Gauguin. He and what he represents to Vincent are the emotional center of the scene. In his overwhelming excitement and eagerness he cuts off thoughts in mid-sentence and then jumps to a different thought entirely.

Aural Hallucinations in the film The Eyes of Van Gogh

In my film The Eyes of Van Gogh, the audience first becomes aware that Vincent van Gogh is hearing voices when Dr. Peyron, played by Roy Thinnes escorts him to his room in the insane asylum at St. Remy.

Vincent absorbs the atmosphere of the room like a sponge. He finds it desolate. He can feel it, taste it - almost hear it. When he hears the voices of his mother and father he reacts very much as he did at the time as a child. He is, in turn, startled, confused, and ultimately trembling in fear and anticipation.

Those voices began to torment van Gogh the night he threatened Paul Gauguin with a razor and continued after Gauguin left Arles. They are insidious and ugly yet, perversely, irresistible.

Throughout the film, he has no control over them. When they occur he feels transported to another world. Voices and sounds in the present are barely heard. He reacts to them, not retrospectively, but rather in relation to what they meant when they took place. He lives in the moment they occurred and takes the audience with him.

Character Analysis: Death of a Salesman

Director's Notes Part Three

It is a sad and frightening truth that Linda, Willy's wife, who is so totally devoted and loyal to him, who is his pillar of strength, who will let no one speak ill of him (no matter how justified it may be), who does everything possible to make his life peaceful and happy, who knows so well how to handle him, who can anticipate almost his every mood and who prides herself on understanding him so well, in actuality knows Willy very little.

She encourages him to stay at a job he is obviously unfit for; she is unaware of his self-esteem crisis and his pie-in-the-sky delusions; she discourages him from starting other pursuits (this because of her ultra-conservative nature); and is completely bewildered by his suicide, despite the clues that are dropped everywhere.

Her fundamental decency, integrity, loyalty and love are remarkable and unquestionable, but it must be realized that she unwittingly feeds Willy’s problem. The love and devotion she gives him, however, are truly a wonder. Tragically, Willy never understands the depth of her commitment.

Fundamentally, Biff is decent, gentle and sensitive. He is extremely stubborn, with a strong independent streak. Right to the very end it is love, not hatred, that drives the relationship between Biff and Willy. Biff hates Willy for betraying his mother, but still loves him deeply for the love and affection Willy lavished on him. He is furious with himself for being unable to remove what he considers this yoke of love, and this exacerbates his antagonism toward Willy.

It is said that Biff’s life is ruined after discovering that Willy is a philanderer. Certainly, it is a tremendous setback, but there are other factors at work here. His innate nature plus his prior experiences and conditioning are of major importance. It is not the discovery of the event itself that causes Biff to give up and leaves him unable to cope with the experience.

Memory and Flashback Scenes in Death of a Salesman

Part Two of Director's Notes

In all of the memory scenes Willy, unlike the other characters, never actually leaves the present, but re-experiences the past. In effect, he revisits the pivotal moments in his life and tries to make sense of them. Subconsciously, however, he already knows what has and what will happen.

Example: In Act ll when he is in the hotel room with the woman and hears the knocking, he knows that if he opens the door it will be disastrous, but is so lost in the memory he cannot comprehend why. The memory scenes are subjective and emotional; a pure visualization of Willy’s feelings and thoughts. Thus, they are fragmented, elliptical and epitomized. He will sometimes remember four or five separate events within one sequence.

The set must be light, minimal and portable. There should be as much free and open space as possible. The confines of the home should be created primarily by the lights, not by actual, permanent walls. We should be able to expand and retract easily and naturally. When his brother Ben enters, for example, we must go from the confines of the kitchen to the open space of Alaska, Africa and the prairies.

Rarely will there be a blackout. Lights will frequently overlap or cross-fade. The action must never stop. Willy’s mind is on a collision course and the lights must reflect this. The set and lights must serve Willy’s mind, which is constantly changing, striving, searching.

There can come a point in a man’s life when it is too late. After this point is reached the truth, and not delusion, becomes the killer. Contrary to most opinion, Willy does achieve self-awareness, and this very awareness is something he is unable to come to terms with. He cannot live with the reality and so hangs on to the delusion and dies with it.

Death of a Salesman is a tragedy of the first order. Consider: a theme of epic importance; the strength, immensity and uncompromising nature of Willy’s struggle; his fatal flaw; his intensity, passion, love, devotion and total single-mindedness; his ultimate destruction; Biff’s ultimate self-awareness. And finally, the fact that true tragedy must have the potential for creating self-awareness in the audience. From this will follow a purging of the soul. Death of a Salesman most definitely creates this self-awareness.

Death of a Salesman: Director’s Notes

Thematic Content and Structure

This is not the story of a salesman: It is the story of Willy Loman who just happened to be a salesman. This is not the story of Everyman. Willy’s passion, love and drive go way beyond the norm. Perhaps most people will relate to Willy, be moved by him and, most importantly, think, contemplate and learn from his life and his mistakes.

Willy, like Eddie Carbone in Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge, demands to be “totally known”. Like Eddie, he could never settle for half. He must attempt everything even if it means ending up with nothing. He will risk his very life to achieve his “due”, what he considers his rightful status. As Arthur Miller says, “The commonest of men may take on that [tragic stature] to the extent of his willingness to throw all he has into the contest, the battle to secure his rightful place in the world”. Of course, this willingness automatically removes him from being the commonest of men.

Self-esteem based upon the approval of others is evanescent and leads to self-delusion and self-destruction. This, to me, is the primary theme of Death of a Salesman. All of Willy’s other problems--his lack of self-knowledge, his refusal to follow his natural instincts, his constant self-doubt, confusion and lack of confidence (no sooner does he make a decision then he needs to be reassured that it’s the right one), his stubborn, pigheaded determination to do things his own way, positive that he’s right and yet in the next moment afraid that he’s wrong, begging for another opinion, the very bad influence he is on his sons--all of this stems from the primary theme.

Having achieved his self-esteem through the approval of others, Willy has watched these ‘approvers’ go to their graves and take his self-esteem with them. As the play progresses, it becomes more and more difficult for Willy to lie and delude himself. One after another, all the myths he has created in the past are exposed before his eyes. There is no self-pity, only frustration, bewilderment and epic struggle. The more he struggles the faster his decline. Subconsciously, Willy knows where he went wrong, but consciously is unable to come to terms with it. The constant and horrendous turmoil Willy endures is based upon his subconscious awareness and conscious refutation.

Both Biff and Happy, his sons, are confused, but Biff is desperately searching for answers; Happy is under the delusion that he is searching, but in many ways has found his niche. Like most womanizers, he’s mindless and self-gratifying. In no way is Hap a young Willy as has sometimes been stated. He lacks the love, passion and depth. Hap is puerile where Biff is undisciplined. Biff, being deeper and more sensitive than Happy, suffers more from Willy’s influence.

Art historians claim Van Gogh's ear 'cut off by Gauguin'

As one who has also spent many years researching the life of Vincent van Gogh, first as the author and director of the play Stranger on the Earth and later as the writer and director of the film The Eyes of Van Gogh, I empathize with the effort spent in producing the book, Van Gogh’s Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence, by Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans.

I understand and appreciate their fascination with this extraordinary individual.

Nonetheless, it must be said that the entire basis of their book rests on a regrettable but enormous misunderstanding of what it was van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo and to Paul Gauguin. That, plus a very selective editing of the same letters and an apparent lack of awareness of certain key facts about Gauguin, led them to a very flawed premise. They then proceeded to shore up their thesis with assertions easily rebutted and with one ludicrous and fabricated incident.

Frankly, I am astonished and appalled by the unthinking reception and attention this book has received from the press.

The authors have concluded that Gauguin, not Vincent himself, is responsible for the mutilation of van Gogh’s ear. They state “We carefully re-examined witness accounts and letters written by both artists and we came to the conclusion that van Gogh was terribly upset over Gauguin’s plan to go back to Paris.” This in itself is no revelation. Anyone who has studied the letters van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo after he mutilated himself, as well as the references to the incident in Gauguin’s memoirs, would know this.

Again quoting the authors: “In the first letter that Vincent van Gogh wrote after the incident, he told Gauguin, ‘I will keep quiet about this and so will you.’ That apparently was the beginning of the ‘pact of silence.’”

The first letter that Vincent wrote after the maiming was to Theo on January 1, 1889, eight days after the event. On the lack of the letter he wrote a note to Gauguin questioned the necessity of having Theo come to Arles. “Look here – was my brother Theo’s journey really necessary, old man?” It pained Vincent terribly to live off of Theo; the last thing he wanted was to burden him with this.

Vincent never wrote “I will keep silent about this and so will you.” There is absolutely no reference to this so called “pact of silent” anywhere in the letter. The only reference to silence, per se, is in a letter to Theo written January 17, 1889 where he mentions that after the incident he had continually asked for Gauguin but he refused to come. He wrote, “How can Gauguin pretend that he was afraid of upsetting me by his present, when he can hardly deny that he knew I kept asking for him continually, and that he was told over and over again that I insisted on seeing him at once. Just to tell him that we should keep it between him and me, without upsetting you. He would not listen.” Meaning that Gauguin did tell Theo what had happened. There was no cover-up. No pact of silence. How could there have been since Vincent makes it clear in this letter that Gauguin refused to see him after the mutilation. Any silence Vincent wanted was in regard to Theo’s learning what he had done to himself – completely in keeping with his character, actions and statements throughout his life, up to and including his suicide, when he pleaded with Dr. Gachet not to let Theo know he shot himself.

Another point: The telegram Gauguin sent to Theo telling him what happened was sent the following morning – after the injury – when Gauguin, seeing a crowd at the Yellow House, discovered what Vincent had done. Obviously, if he had injured Vincent, he wouldn’t have retired to a hotel and let his friend bleed to death, but would have notified Theo immediately.

Kaufmann also cites correspondence between van Gogh and his brother in which the painter hints at what happened that night without directly breaking the “pact of silence’ writing that, “…it is lucky that Gauguin does not have a machine gun or other firearms.” This is very selective editing. What Vincent actually wrote in that letter of January 17, 1889 is, “Fortunately, Gauguin and I and other painters are not yet armed with machine guns and other very destructive elements of war.” He was expressing his disdain for violence disguised as sport.

Finally, again quoting the authors: ‘On the evening of December 23, 1888 van Gogh, seized by an attack of a metabolic disease, became very aggressive when Gauguin said he was leaving him for good. The men had a heated argument near the brothel and Vincent might have attacked his friend. Gauguin, wanting to defend himself and wanting to get rid of ‘the madman’ drew his weapon and made a move towards van Gogh and by that he cut off his left ear.”

Several points: 1. It was not Vincent’s entire ear that was cut off, but rather the lower third of the ear. 2. If in the course of a heated argument Vincent attacked him, Gauguin would have had no need for a sword since he was an expert boxer and would have made short work of a totally inept fighter like Vincent. (While in Brittany in 1893, Gauguin was attacked by a large group of sailors. He more than held his own until he tripped and severely injured his leg.) 3. Gauguin was also an expert swordsman. The swords he fenced with were, of course, foils. For those who don’t know, a foil is a thrusting, not a cutting, weapon and does not have a cutting edge. The idea of Gauguin striking downward with a foil and cutting off a third of Vincent’s lower ear is ludicrous; in fact, damn near impossible. If Gauguin did have a cutting sword (which, of course, he didn’t) and was able to cut of Vincent’s lower ear, rest assured he would have cut off part of his face and shoulder with it.

How sad this whole thing is. As I have written before, there are more myths and misinformation about Vincent van Gogh than any artist who ever lived. What should capture the attention of the world are the facts: The most significant and revelatory things about van Gogh are not that he cut off his earlobe or that he suffered attacks of madness or that he committed suicide, but rather that he lived life to the fullest, realized his artistic potential as much as humanly possible, fought magnificently against the attacks and all forms of adversity - never willingly giving in to them. Most important, he created a superb body of work that will live as long as the human race survives. The theme of his life is his quest to achieve immortality through his work.

Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #4

The myth: Vincent was forced into the asylum by the citizens of Arles and his brother.

The truth: Vincent van Gogh admitted himself to the insane asylum at St. Remy voluntarily because he wanted to be isolated from the outside world; because he considered himself a potential danger to others; and because he wanted to be in a protective environment.

His brother Theo was strongly against his going the St. Remy and wanted Vincent to come to Paris where Theo and Johanna, his wife, could look after him.

The Where did Vincent van Gogh shoot himself myth

Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #3

The myth: Vincent shot himself in the chest.

The truth: No. The reason Vincent van Gogh died slowly and lingered for two days was because he shot himself in the upper abdomen rather than the chest, which had been his intention. The wound he suffered was not necessarily fatal but he no longer had the will to live.

The Only One Painting Vincent van Gogh Myth

Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #2

The myth: Vincent van Gogh sold only one painting.

The truth: It made little difference in his life but van Gogh, in fact, sold two paintings ( and may have sold one or two others as well). On October 3, 1888 his brother, Theo, wrote to the London art dealers, Sulley & Lori. In this letter he said: "We have the honour to inform you that we have sent you the two pictures you have bought and duly paid for; a landscape by Camille Corot,...a self portrait by V. van Gogh." Another picture, therefore, was sold in England nearly fifteen months before Anna Boch bought The Red Vines.

Vincent van Gogh and Dr. Peyron Myth 1

Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #1

The myth: The institution of St. Remy and the man in charge, Dr. Peyron, strongly encouraged Vincent van Gogh to paint and cared for him using advanced modalities in the treatment of psychiatric illness.

The truth: The institution of St. Remy never encouraged Vincent to work; on the contrary, Dr. Peyron opposed the idea from the very beginning and with the greatest reluctance allowed him to paint. I am very glad to hear that they now offer workshops in art therapy, etc. but this was definitely not the case when Vincent was there. The sole treatment was hydrotherapy-hot baths, twice a week. The idea of any kind of work was anathema. There were no books in the asylum, no distractions except bowls and draughts. Vincent found it loathsome that they were given nothing to do. As he said, they were like vegetables, sitting around all day eating, digesting and waiting for their next meal.

If the authorities today claim otherwise they're lying. Vincent's letters prove it. Vincent suffered four attacks at St. Remy. After the final one Dr. Peyron forbid him to paint in spite of his pleading. It was then that he left St.Remy.

David Sweetman's The Love of Many Things - A Life of Vincent Van Gogh corroborates the official version. And what, pray tell, was Sweetman’s source? Probably the institution’s own account. Who do we believe, Vincent and Theo or Sweetman and the institution?

Vincent wrote to Theo at this time: “M. Salles has been to St. Remy – they are not willing to let me point outside the institution.” April1889. Theo, over the strong objections of the administrators, persuaded them to allow Vincent to paint and arranged that he should have two rooms, one to be used as a bedroom and the other as a studio. Both, mere dingy cells with bars like all the other cells. Sweetman's description makes it sound like a resort.Reiterating my earlier point, prior to Vincent, no patient at St. Remy was ever allowed to do any work of any kind. Their whole philosophy was to keep all the patients as quiet and inactive as possible. Vincent again, “Above all I must not waste my time, I am going to set to work again as soon as M. Peyron permits it; if he does not permit it, then I shall be through with this place. … The rather superstitious ideas they have here about painting sometimes depress me more than I can tell you.” January 1890. For them to claim that they pioneered the treatment of psychiatric illness (at least when Vincent was there) is belied directly by Vincent’s own account. Again: “The treatment of patients in the hospital is certainly easy for they do absolutely nothing; they leave them to vegetate in idleness and feed them with stale and slightly spoiled food.” Sept. 1889. “The food is so-so. Naturally it tastes rather moldy, like in a cockroach infested restaurant in Paris.” May 1889. As to the people, Peyron included, who ran the institution, “Perhaps they would like nothing better than for the thing to become chronic, and we should be culpably stupid to give into that. They inquire a great deal too much to my liking about what not only I but also what you earn, and so on.” August 1889.

Vincent’s stay at St. Remy was indeed a nightmare. For them now to try to rewrite history is very typical and very wrong. I made my film The Eyes of Van Gogh to set the record straight, to show what really happened there and also to reveal the truth behind his relationships to his brother, his father and Gauguin. All from his point of view.

Film Clip from Othello

DARFUR: THE PEOPLE THE WORLD HAS FORGOTTEN

The tragedy in Darfur has been going on for four years and all we've had from the world at large is fancy talk and much posturing. I ask these rabid non intervationists, what would you do if your wife was raped or your children were murdered or they were in danger of this happening? I'm not talking about invading Karthoum or supporting the rebels. I'm talking about protecting totally innocent people who have no way of protecting themselves, by creating a no-fly zone so that Bashir's butchers can't get near them. And please, don't tell me that we have more immediate problems to worry about. The economic problems that we and other countries currently face is child's play compared to what these people are going through. What they wouldn't give to exchange their problems for ours. Check the above link for a typically excellent article on Darfur by one of my biggest heroes, Nat Hentoff.

Bashir: Murderer

In my view, for the immiserated people of Darfur, this is far too little and far too late.

ART AND HUMAN REALITY

Human life is lived in a middle position between our genetic determinants on the one hand and culture on the other. It's out of that that human freedom emerges. And artistic works, the plays of Shakespeare, the novels of Jane Austen, the works of Wagner and Beethoven, Rembrandt and Hokusai, are among the freest, most human acts ever accomplished. These creations are the ultimate expressions of freedom.

Perfectly said.

At What Cost? HIV and Human Rights Consequences of the Global "War on Drugs"

This OSI report examines the unintended consequences of aggressive antidrug policies on people who use drugs, their families, and the health care providers who work with them.

Manufacturing Guilt?

I urge you to get this into the hands of as many people as possible. AB.

Video Raises Serious Questions About Death Row Conviction. In 1993, 23-month-old Haley Oliveaux drowned in her bathtub in West Monroe, Louisiana. Bite mark identification and analysis performed by forensic experts Steven Hayne and Michael West tied Jimmie Duncan to Oliveaux’s death. Duncan was convicted of murdering the baby girl and sentenced to death. He has been on death row for 10 years. But an autopsy videotape obtained by Reason magazine’s Radley Balko shows the bite marks were not on Oliveaux’s body at the time of her death. You can see the video, and still photos from it, here. Balko asked Michael Bowers, a deputy medical examiner for Ventura County, California, and a past chairman of the American Board of Forensic Odontology’s Exam and Credentialing Committee, to review the tape. When asked how abrasions on Oliveaux's cheek that were not present when the video begins could later appear, Bowers said, "Because Dr. West created them. It was intentional. He's creating artificial abrasions in that video, and he's tampering with the evidence. It's criminal, regardless of what excuse he may come up with about his methods."

Balko's Reporting on Mississippi's Criminal Forensics System

New film clip from The Eyes of Van Gogh

Dr. Peyron (Roy Thinnes) tells Vincent (Alexander Barnett) that he will never be cured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWF8neMFQfw

The official site of the film is http://www.theeyesofvangogh.com/.

The Eyes of Van Gogh Film Clip

In this scene from the film Vincent (Alexander Barnett) and Gauguin (Lee Godart) battle for the last time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak9iffBLF7w

Thoughts on directing Macbeth

Classic Theatre International, which I founded, was an American company dedicated to performing Shakespeare and contemporary classics throughout the world. One of those productions was Macbeth.

We interpreted Macbeth as an in-depth study of fear and tyranny and as one of Shakespeare’s most brutal and savage plays. Our Macbeth does not enter from battle as a finely-robed, unmarked general who has the sophisticated soul of a poet, but rather as a bloodied, scarred, intrepid, unsurpassed gladiator. Macbeth’s imagery expresses his subconscious mind but that in no way makes him a poet. Neither is he a victim of circumstances or a man whose fate is determined by supernatural influences or an overbearing wife. He is one of those people who would love to enjoy the fruits of treachery without having had to commit the treachery, thereby retaining a clean conscience even as he reaps the results of evil. Macbeth knows what he wants and what he must do to get it.

The idea of killing Duncan occurs to him before he is confronted by the three sisters. He tells his wife of his desires because he knows that she will give him the emotional and moral support he most desperately needs in order to achieve them. Macbeth has no predisposition to murder, merely an inordinate ambition and a lust for power that make murder itself seem a lesser evil than a failure to secure the crown. After he commits the murder it is fear, not guilt that infects Macbeth’s dreams and causes his intense paranoia.

Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are devoid of pathos and tenderness. They are not innocent sufferers but self-corrupted and guilty workers of horror. They do not command our affection or our sympathy, but we should be riveted, astounded and overwhelmed by their passion, brutality and determination. Above all they are human beings and not unreal monsters or evil incarnate. In Macbeth there are no neutral characters. Every person opposes, allows or encourages the tyranny unleashed by Macbeth. We do not treat the witches as supernatural beings but as the outward manifestation of Macbeth’s inner struggles and desires. Macbeth’s inner struggle and turmoil are expressed literally and theatrically.

I trained the company not to treat poetry as a strange, peculiar or awkward form of speech but as an absolutely natural and necessary way of expressing the highest and most profound thoughts in the most precise and perfect way possible. We tried to combine the perfect blending of the cerebral and the emotional; the thinking heart as Victor Hugo called it. This, plus a reverence for clarity and form, overcame much of the language barrier we encountered.

Our goal was not to perform only once in a city but to return year after year with the purpose of enriching all our lives. I firmly believe that there is a universal language that can be expressed through the correct combination and execution of text, mind, voice and body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1UN055OM2w

Thematic Structure of my Production of Othello

The production of Othello that I directed for Classic Theatre International was stark, brutal and unsentimental. We interpret it as a sixteenth century horror story that, tragically, is incredibly more than applicable in our modern world. In this production the tragedy is not in the downfall of a great man but rather in the cold-blooded murder of two marvelous and heroic women, Desdemona and Emilia. We view the production from a woman’s as well as a man’s point of view. We show the results of a male-dominated society where vanity, ego and appearance dominate rational and logical considerations and where women are treated as property and second-class citizens. It is a stinging indictment of the warrior mentality of Othello and the analytical yet maniacal and inhuman mentality of Iago.

We see Othello not as great man but rather as a very flawed individual who happens to be an outstanding warrior. Self-delusion is at the core of his character. His greatest flaws are his refusal to face the reality of his nature and his firm belief that he has the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Watching him we learn the importance of humility, of constantly questioning our motives, of knowing and admitting our weaknesses and failures and of constantly striving to improve ourselves. We are also reminded that no one except a legally appointed person, operating within the framework of a humanistic and ethical code, has the right to pass sentence on another human being.

In regard to Iago - unlike the standard portrayal of a dispassionate, unmotivated and coldly objective creature we see an obsessive, irrational, subjective, compulsive, reckless, maniacal paranoid who is overwhelmed with hatred and yet has the incredible ability to present to the world an entirely different personality. He literally thrives on danger and excitement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix9ZEy-ndvE

Themes in King Lear

KING LEAR is Shakespeare’s greatest play and very likely the greatest work of literature ever written. Its themes are of the most profound nature. What is the ultimate power that moves the universe? What is the meaning of justice? What motivates man to be evil or good?

The play takes place in 800 B.C. King Lear has led Britain for sixty years. During his reign he has created a fantasy land not founded on truth. He is blind to what is really around him. He is a man of vast potential; a man of enormous passion, humanity, dignity and strength who has been inundated with lies, flattery unchallenged obedience and false adoration. He who most needed and demanded truth, he whose inner being was so honest, trusting and ethical learned to compromise his integrity, thriving on lies while his subconscious, his essence, has been devastated. He has denied himself his most important need: self-realization.

When the play opens, Lear’s psychological state is such that he is often incapable of controlling his strongest emotions. He is aware of this lack of control. Even as he indulges it he fears the consequences Lear has always been a man of lowering passion but had the incredible mind and will to match it. Now, however, his purpose and control have been eroded by his increasingly irrational emotional state.

Lear’s madness is not the result of evil or unjust actions, but that his actions belie his essence. Emotionally induced madness is brought on by an overwhelming accumulation of lies that the subconscious rebels against. The manifestation of madness is the body and mind’s defense against total physical destruction. Immoral actions do not induce madness in those whose essence condones them. Witness the unethical characters in KING LEAR who rarely lose their equanimity and are always objectively aware of what they are doing.

Edmund, the bastard son of Gloucester, knows exactly what he wants and is willing to do anything to get it. He is not immoral but amoral. He will be anything and do anything to achieve his nefarious end. He has an uncanny ability to encourage people to be what they are arid to express themselves fully. Then he uses this knowledge to destroy them. He radiates concern and empathy, and always for his own malevolent purposes.

Goneril, Lear’s eldest daughter, trusts no one, anticipating chicanery and duplicity from everyone she deals with. She believes that there are two kinds of people, those who will kill and destroy to achieve their goals and those who won’t, simply because they lack the courage. To the extent that she practices evil is the extent to which she sees and anticipates it in others. No sooner is she given new power than she is already afraid of losing it. No moment in her life is savored or enjoyed, no victory brings satisfaction. In effect, every gain in her life is a loss because it creates a new problem. She is not defeated because of complacency, but because she sees everything as a potential threat and so she continually strikes out and finally overreaches.

Cornwall, husband of Regan, is an excellent study of a purely sadistic brutal and vicious character. He is hot-tempered, ambitious, cowardly, ruthless and arrogant. He is a born dictator with a rigid code by which he judges others, but he considers himself sacrosanct. He believes that he who has the ability or good fortune to achieve power automatically has the right to use it any way he deems fit. Unlike Edmund, he is not amoral. He does have a code and rules by which he lives. He is a religious man. He believes that if one achieves power on his own it results in a divine authority and that if one inherits power (as he has) it demonstrates God’s recognition of this authority.

Goneril’s sister Regan is an insidious, vicious, mean-tempered woman who unlike Goneril has always given the appearance of being docile and even sweet. This stems from a certain diffidence and a basically quieter nature which in no way makes her morally superior. Both sisters view everything in terms of themselves and how it relates to them. Nothing else is important. Nothing else means anything. When any of these evil characters taste blood they seem to become infected by it. But it is not the taste of blood that is the catalyst, but the desire to taste it.
Cordelia and Kent are outstanding studies of the virtuous and ethical nature. They are impulsive, emotional and loyal creatures who can neither lie to themselves or others. Since they are so totally discerning and selective, their devotion to Lear tells us a great deal about his ultimate worth.

Gloucester, father to Edmund and Edgar, is an undiscerning, selfish, credulous and superstitious man. He is opinionated and cynical and is constantly seeking re-affirmation of his cynicism. While Lear seeks confirmation of love and trust, Gloucester seeks the opposite. He is a kind and decent man with a weak, impressionable nature. It is his nature to be acted upon and led by stronger personalities. When the events and people who influence him are decent and moral he acts accordingly, but when they are not he goes against his essence. Lear and Gloucester are both lied to, but this is secondary. What is paramount is that they, by accepting these lies as truth, have lied to themselves. They knew better but did not act on their knowledge.

New Website

My new website www.alexanderbarnett.com is now published. I hope you'll visit. There will be new updates frequently.