Movie Titus (1999), Essay Example

In 1999, Julie Taymor was the first woman to direct a film version of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus and there are many different opinions about her adaptation of the play into her film Titus. Some argue she kept the story intact with minimal changes, while others claim the natural burdens placed on a female director to remake a predominantly patriarchal film covering the topic of rape in a post-feminists era, resulted in modernizations that essentially meant the drastic change of the play. Before one can assess Titus, they must first acknowledge the unique aspects associated with its production. In Hollywood film making, production and direction are most often handled by men, likewise Shakespeare’s play was written during a time when the notion of feminism was non-existent and the plot largely centers around a patriarchal Roman Empire. For JulieTaymor to be given the power to produce a major Hollywood film adaption of the play including a cast with top Hollywood names like Jessica Lange, Anthony Hopkins, and Alan Cumming, it’s a big deal and undoubtedly presents an opportunity for Taymor to introduce a female perspective on the topic of rape in Shakespeare’s play which she did. The following will critique Taymor’s version of Titus, specifically in regards to how rape is dealt with in a post-feminist context.

Skov argues that as Feminism evolved into post-feminism, so did film theory as it relates to feminist issues and this particular shift can be seen in Taymor’s work.  Skov argues that the way Taymor presents Tamora and Lavinia is clearly based on feminist theory. The author notes that, “something more is clearly lurking under the film’s surface and even though it was not the explicit goal of the film, Taymor must be said to have drawn on feminist and post-feminist ideas” (Skov, 1).  She further goes on to note that this feminist representation can be seen in how Taymor differently represents the female characters from Shakespeare, how Taymor chooses to construct the gaze, the form of the film and the “presence of identification possibilities for a female audience”(Skov,1). The clearest distinction between Taymor’s interpretation of the female characters and Shakespeare’s original characters can be seen in the director’s use of contemporary cultural references to present the female characters in a way that is conscious of the post-feminist ideals but the result of this is that it alters the patriarchal ideology behind the narrative of Shakespeare’s original work. Taymore revealed herself to be more concerned with the moral impact the violence in TItus had on women and children in an interview when she talks about the Fly scene noting that, “… I got to the scene with the fly and I thought: “here they are with hands cut off, and tongues cut off, and there’s a child watching all this at the end of the dinner-table.” And the moment I met the child, I knew I was going to do this play. Because this child is part of all this and it so heightens what happens” (Aebischer, 27). In this regard she attempts to make the audience feel sympathy and remorse for the characters and actually establishes to make Shakespeare’s piece more tragic.

Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus is his earliest tragedy. It is estimated to originate from around 1594, and even though it is generally not considered to be one of his better plays, it has, like all his other works, been widely discussed. The storyline evolves around the Roman general, Titus, who has been defending the empire against the Goths. Titus executes the Gothic crown prince and as the queen of the Goths, Tamora, declares revenge against Titus, it results in in a range of violence and retaliation towards Titus, one key incident being the rape of his daughter Lavinia.  A core aspect of the Titus Andronicus play is the “unrepresentable rape” of Lavinia. The rape is treated as unrepresentable by Shakespeare because it occurs offstage, but also because rape is essentially a crime that doesn’t leave any real trace or evidence. The main difference between how Taymor deals with the topic of rape and how it was dealt with in Shakespeare is that Taymor subtly addresses the emotional and psychological impact as well as the bias patriarchy of the original play in respect to how it’s no longer relevant. Shakespeare on the other hand treats Lavinia as property, and all of the horrors inflicted upon her are really just damage to the property of Titus. This idea of viewing rape just as theft of property in Shakespeare’s version can be seen in one of the first conversation about the subject in the play between Saturninus and Bassianus when they say, “Saturninus Traitor, if Rome have law or we have power Thou and thy faction shall repent this rape. Bassianus “Rape” call you it, my lord, to seize my own, My true betrothed love, and now my wife? But let the laws of Rome determine all; Meanwhile am I possessed of what is mine” (Shakespeare, I, ii: 408-13). This conversation occurs while Lavinia is standing by in silence. Here it is clear that Shakespeare presents women as an object to be owned by man. The author  points out that later on in Shakespeare’s version rape is treated simply as an abduction and the concept of rape is downplayed and not mentioned. The violence and psychological impact of the event are also not take into account. This is very different from the film version which uses gory metaphor to explain Shakespeare’s interpretation, rape as abduction is replaced by the sexual violence imposed upon Lavinia by the enemies of Titus and the voluntary silence Lavinia has in Shakespeare’s play is replaced with forced silence through the brutal amputation of her hands and tongue.

Since the 1960s, a number of feminist scholars have occupied themselves with the works of Shakespeare and have been analyzing the female characters in his different writings to reveal Shakespeare’s view on women and to clarify the kind of roles that he left for them in society. Taymor adds on to this reflection by Shakespeare and paints a picture of how the modern woman would deal with the patriarchal aspects of society. He notes that, “Taymor must be said to have revealed some truths of her own in relation to this play and especially the female characters within it. She has made interventions which question everything from the stereotypical roles of women in the play and in conventional film making in general to female power and the effect of popular cultural products on gendered existence and violence” (Skov, 3). When it comes to Titus Andronicus most feminist scholars have focused on the character of Lavinia as the repressed and silenced woman trapped within patriarchal power structures while others have have focused her opposite in the play: the Gothic Queen Tamora (Brownmiller et al, 12). Tamora is representative of a female from the wrong place in society. She behaves dangerously and commits violent acts ins Shakespeare’s version, but in  Taymor’s versions she is empowered and presented as an equal threat to Titus and his heroics (Blumenthal, 4). This sheds light on how the artist’s were inspired in their development of the story, and the differences in these inspirations shape the differences in their respective works.

Shakespeare’s inspiration for the play comes from Ovid’s Metamorphoses based on the fact that Shakespeare references Philomels throughout the play. Taymor’s interpretation slightly alters this through her use of feminist motifs but she too contains intertextual references the story of Philomela. A wide range of scholars are conflicted on Taymor’s work, specifically in regards to the way she depicts women in the film.  Many of the disagreements that arise in respect to the female characters create a climate where it becomes necessary to assess Titus through a feminist/postfeminist scope. As Skov notes, “Taymor herself has said that she would never rewrite Shakespeare but with this film she would have to fill his work out visually” (Skov, 1). She demonstrated this through the symbolid metaphorical use of gore that has become commonly used in Hollywood as just a meaningless tool to shock the audience (Ghita, 5).

In sum, the way rape is handled in Taymor’s version of Titus represents the distinct difference between Shakespeare’s original play and her film adaption. While Shakespeare’s handles the rape from a misogynist viewpoint, Taymor deals with the subject from a post-feminist perspective. Lavinia is portrays the the characteristics of a modern day rape victim and not one that is simply an object of male obsessions and objectification. This key difference entirely redefines the patriarchal aspects of the play, thus changing the plots ideological stances on the relationship between men and women.

Work Cited

Aebischer, Pascale. “‘Yet I’ll Speak’: Silencing the Female Voice in Titus Andronicus and Othello”. Shakespeare et la voix. Éd. Patricia Dorval. Paris : Société Française Shakespeare. 27-46.

Agustí, Clara Escoda. “Julie Taymor’s” Titus”(1999): Framing Violence and Activating Responsibility.” Atlantis (2006): 57-70.

Blumenthal, Eileen, and JulieTaymor. Julie Taymor: Playing with Fire. New York: Abrams, 1999.

Brownmiller, Susan. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. London: Secker and Warburg, 1975.

Ghita, Lucian. “Reality and Metaphor in Jane Howell’s and Julie Taymor’s Productions of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 6.1 (2004): <http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1215>

Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus; Pericles; Much ado about nothing. Vol. 3. JD Morris, 1901.

Skov, Sørensen, Bent. “Julie Taymor’s Titus–A postfeminist Shakespeare?.”

Taymor, Julie. Titus: The Illustrated Screenplay, Adapted from the Play by William Shakespeare. New York: Newmarket, 2000.

Titus. Dir. Julie Taymor. With Antony Hopkins, Harry Lennix, Jessica Lange, Laura Fraser. 1999. DVD. Twentieth Century Fox, 2000.