On revenge tragedies and Shakespeare

Revenge tragedies were all the rage in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. The Spanish Tragedy marks the beginning. ’Tis Pity She’s a Whore marks the end (or at least, I believe it was one of the last ones). So lately I’ve been reading a few and thinking about them.  

If you’re looking for depth or complexity or big ideas, I would say you won’t find any. Revenge tragedies are about excitement and ingenuity of plot and violence. Revenge tragedies are about shocking and sensational stage effects, like someone biting off his own tongue and spitting it out, or kissing and getting killed by a skull, or appearing with a bloody heart on a dagger. The modern equivalent would be Korean and Japanese revenge films. I have seen Audition, Lady Snowblood, Confessions… from Japan; Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, Pietà, Montage, The Housemaid (remake), The Handmaiden… from South Korea. You watch these films for the violence and the ingenuity of the revenge. Sometimes I may find a revenge film entertaining and clever, like The Handmaiden, but often I’m just disgusted by the excessive violence and savagery—Pietà is probably the best example of a film with a disturbing delight in its depiction of cruelty and depravity—it left me thinking, all right that’s a picture of extreme barbarity, now what?—all it gave me was strong disgust and a bad taste in my mouth. 

The most profound revenge film I have seen, if it counts as a revenge film, is Ran. It’s not only about revenge but revenge is a big part of it and it’s something Kurosawa adds that isn’t in King Lear. 

And that brings me to another point, about Shakespeare. When my friend Himadri read these revenge plays 10 years ago, he wrote: 

“If Shakespeare’s audiences really did crave revenge tragedy – and the existence of so many plays by his contemporaries in this genre indicates that they did – then Shakespeare seems on the whole to have been swimming against the popular tide in refusing to satisfy them.”

That’s an interesting observation. The only proper revenge play Shakespeare wrote was Titus Andronicus, and even then I’m not sure what he was doing—was it serious or tongue-in-cheek? was it a genuine attempt to out-Seneca Seneca? or a parody? or just an early paid job before he could write what he wanted? (or, was it even Shakespeare at all? I always say Oxfordians and other loonies are welcome to claim that one).  

Once Titus Andronicus was over and done with, Shakespeare didn’t seem to particularly care for the revenge genre. His only interest was in parodying it or playing with it. Hamlet is a clear example—it’s a play about revenge, but most of it is about Hamlet not doing anything—instead, he ponders about the nature of revenge, the point of revenge, the point of existence, and when he finally kills Claudius, it doesn’t happen as a result of Hamlet’s plan. Coriolanus has revenge in the latter half of the play but it’s arguably not about the revenge itself—Shakespeare seems more interested in why a hero such as Coriolanus would go to the enemy and bring destruction upon his own city—the central difference is that revenge tragedies (at least those I have read) are about the how of revenge whereas Shakespeare is more fascinated by the why. The Tempest is another parody of the genre—it starts off with Prospero speaking of revenge and ends with him forgiving his enemies. 

Clearly Shakespeare isn’t interested in the spectacle of violence, but in people’s minds—and that is why his plays have a kind of depth that the revenge tragedies don’t have. 

 

Disclaimer: I very much enjoyed The Revenger’s Tragedy, which should be better known, and The Spanish Tragedy was also good fun.