The juvenile delusions of many of Shakespeare’s male characters may be exacerbating to those who study them. More exaggerated than any other example is the case of Leontes, whose abrupt and dangerous shift in the first act of A Winter’s Tale springs from nothing and wrenches the tone of the play in its earliest lines. Of all the characters who fear being cheated on by his wife or being betrayed by his comrade, none have had so little evidence or reason to believe the worst as Leontes. Immediately after a perfectly pleasant and mundane interaction, when Polixenes and Hermione leave the stage Leontes is launched into his tirade;

Go play, boy, play. — There have been,

Or I am much deceived, as cuckolds ere now,

And many a man there is, even at this present,

Now, while I speak this, holds his wife by th’arm,

That little thinks she has been sluiced in’s absence,

And his pond fished by his neighbor, by

Sir Smile, his neighbor.

Leontes snaps from a friendly and jovial scene with his close friend to describing himself as a cuckold, speaking for all men like him, and using ridiculously crude and nasty language to describe his wife’s sexuality. He describes her, and all the adulterous women of the world, as a “sluice,” or a channel into which water is directed. He calls her sexual organs a “pond” free for use by any man who stumbles across her. This is all stemming from the fact that she was polite to a person Leontes has been friends with since childhood. This goes further than misogyny, it is a very dangerous breed of solipsism.

The Room is a film written, directed, and starring mysterious man-baby Tommy Wiseau. The film is a high school diary-manifesto style story of a man who is betrayed by all the people he holds dear in his life. Principally, his fiance, Lisa, is having an affair with Wiseau’s character’s best friend. This is juxtaposed with the lies she tells about her fiance abusing her and the general evil and lasciviousness of womankind. The film culminates in a “look what you made me do” bullet through the roof of Wiseau’s character’s mouth. Why couldn’t we have been nicer? A viewer should begin to get an understanding of Wiseau not only as a resentful failed performer with particular contempt for women, but also as a serial solipsist with nearly no understanding of the nuance or intricacies of the minds of his fellow humans.

Leontes and Wiseau can jump to conclusions about their women being unfaithful to them because they do not truly believe that their minds are real. For Leontes to oversimplify the psyche of his wife whom he has loved and known for years with absolutely zero stimuli mean that he never thought she was real in the first place. At the very least, he does not believe that Hermione is a real, conscious human person with the same complexity of mind that he has. Because he holds this belief about her, it is easy for him to assume that she would sleep with Polixenes because she has nothing in her mind telling her not to. It is easy for his to believe that Polixenes would be after Hermione because Polixenes does not have the same concept of righteousness and morality as Leontes.

The Room tells the story of two people who betray and cause the death of a person they love just because they felt like it, and that simplistic and cold view of the world fits perfectly into the solipsistic egoism of Wiseau, and of Leontes. Wiseau constructs a fantastic scenario where he is the victim of all the world’s evil. Leontes constructs this same fantasy in his mind. Leontes is the center of his universe, he is the only true consciousness, and so he can rely on no one else to live as correctly and virtuously as he.

One thing about Julius Caesar that is both interesting and concerning is its treatment of the masses of Rome. The Plebeians serve a very important function both practically and abstractly in the play as the characters which the conspirators are ostensibly acting on the behalf of. Despite this, they are easily manipulated to turn on the conspirators. In fact, the only consistent thing about the Plebeians appears to be their quickness to be convinced. This is interesting because of the function this plays in the events of the play, but concerning because of the implications of this characterization regarding democratic participants in general.

The Plebeians come in to play in a significant way just after Caesar’s death when Brutus, and then Antony meet them at the pulpit. During Brutus’ interaction with them we do not begin with any textual evidence of the Plebeians being angry with Brutus. Instead they call him “noble” and quiet each other down to calmly listen to him. In the beginning, the only thing that they want is to hear the reasons the conspirators have for killing their beloved leader. This is their only request and they seem perfectly willing to receive it. By the end of Brutus’ short speech, they are ready to name him their new Caesar. It is important to understand that the Plebeians come into this scene with no original opinion on the events of the assassination. They arrive asking Brutus to tell them how to feel and they accept the first suggested outlook. They appear adopt it uniformly as well, seeing as how there is no dissent or disagreement between the Plebeians. They think and act as a single unit with no representation of divergent points of view.

It does not take long, however, for the Plebeians to go from lauding Brutus and calling for his deification, to demanding his death and the deaths of his fellow assassins. I think that the true turning point in Antony’s monologue which changes the minds of the Plebeians happens here:

Have patience, gentle friends: I must not read it.

It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you.

You are nor wood, you are not stones, but men;

And being men, hearing the will of Caesar,

It will inflame you, it will make you mad.

‘Tis good you know not that you are his heirs,

For if you should, oh, what would come of it?

Here Antony states explicitly, although he pretends not to, that the citizens of Rome are the rightful inheritors of Caesar’s land and riches. During the first break in Antony’s speech, the Plebeians calmly mull over what they have heard which is mostly reasons why Caesar was not as ambitious as Brutus makes him sound. At the mention of the will they become much more animated, and with confirmation that Caesar left his estate to them they are whipped into a frenzy. This frenzy is maintained beyond the scene and sees them seek out revenge against the conspirators.

The trouble with this portrayal of the Plebeians is a combination of an absence of original thought in regards to the assassination, the easy filling of this vacuum by Brutus seemingly for no logical reason, and the equally as quick replacement of that narrative by Antony with the mention of material reward. The implications about the frivolity, greed, and susceptibility of the democratic masses are dark and concerning.

The most interesting thing about this play to me is the way it functions as Tudor propaganda. Richmond, Richard’s successor, has a logical and necessary role as his adversary in this story. The historical record documents a struggle between two men which results in the death and usurpation of the loser, and Richmond is indispensable to creating that dynamic onstage. The inclusion of Richmond itself is not propaganda, but the treatment of his character appears that way. His final monologue is the clearest way Shakespeare reaches directly out to his royal audience to flatter them.

We will unite the white rose and the red.

Smile heaven upon this fair conjunction,

That long have frowned upon their enmity.

What traitor hears me and says not “Amen”?

This monologue comes after Richmond decrees a pardon for those who fought on the side of Richard, him knowing that maintaining the divisions of the war will not set England back on the right path. He feels the need to make amends between the two sides of the conflict if he is going to avoid yet another war. Here Shakespeare has contrasted Richmond’s governing style with that of Richard. In the most straightforward terms, Richard is a leader who holds grudges, favors conflict, and encourages division. Juxtaposed with him is Richmond who forgives his enemies, avoids fighting, and fosters unity. Richmond’s moves to unite the Yorks and Lancasters are even purported by him to be the will of God. He communicates that heaven has wept over the wars in England, and now rejoices at the rise of the new king and the beginning of a peaceful era.

Oh, now let Richmond and Elizabeth,

The true succeeders of of each royal house,

By God’s fair ordinance conjoin together;

And let their heirs, God, if Thy will be so,

Enrich the time to come with smooth-faced peace,

With smiling plenty, and fair prosperous days.

This quote is where the groveling really gets started. It’s a happy coincidence that the queen whose cooperation means the reunification of England’s ruling family has the same name as the queen Shakespeare is putting on this play for. His character, who lived over a century before the drafting of this play, can mention Shakespeare’s contemporary queen by name as well as the peace and prosperity she brings. When Richmond appeals to God to sponsor the new union and the new heirs of the English throne, the stakes are quite low because the audience already knows the answer. God must have endorsed the future of England if the new dynasty survived to Shakespeare’s time. Richmond is Queen Elizabeth I’s paternal grandfather, and as the inheritor of the kingdom he patched, she is the one who has been favored by Providence. Explicitly outlining evidence for why God wants your queen to be in charge is some serious propaganda. This is certainly a sanitized version of the actual Tudor dynasty. Richmond’s son, King Henry VIII caused plenty of chaos in England with the break from the church. After his rule, uncertainty of succession became a theme of the dynasty, with a short rule by Henry’s son which was followed by another conflict involving Lady Jane Grey which led to the rise of Queen Mary, and then the childless Elizabeth.

Shakespeare lived and wrote during the time in which Britain was making its first earnest attempts at building an overseas empire. Voyages and colonization are themes he writes about multiple times, in The Tempest, Pericles, and others. Othello appears to anticipate racist justifications for colonialism which would develop more clearly later in in the British Empire. Shakespeare may have seen the beginnings of these theories and attitudes which would eventually form racism as we understand it today, with a hierarchy of ethnicity and a responsibility of Europeans to civilize and Christianize. Othello, in the most straightforward way, is a play about race. The attitudes that some characters hold toward Othello are familiar racist attitudes toward us. The clearest and most prevalent example is the comparison of Othello to an animal. It appears in the very first scene when Iago says the following to Brabanzio:

Sir, you’re robbed. For shame put on your gown.

Your heart is burst; you have lost half your soul:

Even now, now, very now, an old black ram

Is tupping your white ewe. Arise! Arise!

Awake the snorting citizens with the bell,

Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you.

Arise, I say!

In one of the first descriptions of Othello, he is likened to an animal. Modern audiences should be familiar with comparisons between black folks and animals with the insinuation that their intelligence is lower, and their instinctual impulses are stronger than those of white folks. Later in this scene, Iago and Roderigo speak of Othello’s powerful sexual appetite and his savageness. This Iago quote even includes a more contemporary American anxiety; that delicate and impressionable white women will be lured in by charismatic black men who will corrupt them. The illegitimacy of a union between people of a different race is not a foreign concept to us. When Iago calls Othello a devil, we are reminded that he is an unchristian, even anti-Christian force, being a Moor. That is part of the threat he poses, even though Othello is a collaborator on the side of Iago in a conflict with the major Islamic empire of the time.

We discussed in class the idea of Iago as a villain without any reason for being evil. The more I consider his character, the more I am convinced that he is motivated by unambiguous racism. Iago seems prepared to undermine Othello’s relationship with Desdemona from the introduction of his character. We never observe Iago in a monologue on his motivations or his reasons for dismantling Othello’s life. We can only assume that, by the way he speaks about Othello and the parts of his life he targets, he hates seeing a dark skinned person in a position of power, wed to a white woman. He sees an illegitimacy there which he feels he must point out to the other characters. When the other characters do not heed his warnings and give Othello their favor, Iago appears to fall into line behind him, to target him more covertly. Iago is not a villain without a motivation, racism is a perfectly legitimate motivation for a character so evil.

Cross dressing as a plot device isn’t a rare thing in Shakespeare’s plays. The case in Twelfth Night of Viola disguising herself as Cesario gives us important insight to a main theme of the play; double meanings in language and the external element of identity. She also provides us with a more contemporary interpretation regarding the gender binary and androgyny. Did you ever notice how whenever a female character cross dresses as a man in Shakespeare, that character has half the other characters fall in love with them? It’s because gender ambiguity is hot. It reveals a lot about characters like Olivia who fall in love with barely disguised women. Olivia also spends the play shirking the affections of other men. Sexual identity may not have been understood in Shakespeare’s day the way that it is now, but Maybe Olivia’s attraction to conventionally masculine men, or even men in general, is not there. Perhaps Cesario’s androgyny is what attracts her, and is the thing that her suitors are missing. In their initial encounter, Cesario calls Olivia very beautiful. This is not something that would be necessary of him as a messenger, but he does so. One can wonder whether Viola is speaking in her genuine voice here. If the other characters find Cesario so alluring, what can we say about Sebastian? Cesario looks exactly like Sebastian in face and in clothing, unlike Viola who only has Sebastian’s face. Sebastian must either have the face of a woman, Viola the face of a man, or there is no such thing as either a man’s or a woman’s face. If the female Viola cannot be distinguished from the male Sebastian while she is in disguise, what does gender have to do with their identities at all. If they appear the same aside from their clothing, if they can have the same mannerisms, why does being male and female make them so different? When we take away the social expectations and perceptions of gender, what do we have left that makes men and women so different from each other?

Primarily through Feste, the play uses the double meanings of words and titles break down established binaries, particularly of social class. This class binary works in a similar way to the gender binary surrounding Viola. With a disguise, Feste appears to Malvolio to be a scholar. Malvolio has already insulted Feste early in the play, disregarding him because of his social stature. Then Malvolio cannot tell that the scholar he encounters if actually Feste. Where Malvolio once tried to push Feste out of Olivia’s residence, he now begs Sir Topas to come and help him. If a nobleman like Malvolio cannot tell the difference between a fool and a scholar, what is the difference between a fool and a scholar? Two exact opposites, one known for his stupidity and occupation of servitude, one known for intelligence and social significance, a fool and a scholar are separated only by the clothes they wear and the way they act. Much like the chasm between genders appears much smaller when social assumptions and expectations are stripped away.

I think the most glaringly problematic thing about A Midsummer Night’s Dream is the way consent is toyed with in its main plot line. The fact that the main characters, mainly Titania, Lysander, and Demetrius, have their ability to consent robbed of them as a comedic device is deeply troubling. While Titania and Lysander are restored to the way they were at the beginning of the play, no one bothers to lift the spell off of Demetrius. While this situation can be stretched to appear benign during the first few acts of the play, where Demetrius ends up should concern the audience. Demetrius and Helena move on from the play together as a couple which is an idea that was abhorrent to Demetrius at the beginning. What happens to Demetrius when the curtain closes is rape in the most unambiguous terms. In the same way that drugging someone to take away their ability to consent is assault, Demetrius has been assaulted. This should not be part of the cheery ending of an otherwise progressive story of women overcoming social norms and demanding autonomy in their own lives. While Helena can be celebrated for much of the play as a female character with agency and strong convictions, we can not be joyous when she obtains the person she is after considering the methods by which he was acquired. While it may seem righteous and logical for the play to reduce the boundless power held by male characters and share it with female ones, it goes too far in dismantling Demetrius’ potency.

Aside from that, I like to think of A Midsummer Night’s Dream as the play that got all the strong female characters Shakespeare forgot to put in The Tempest. The scarcity is so great in The Tempest that its defenders laud Sycorax as a feminist icon. Titania, Hermia, and Helena are all given so much to do and have such vivid motivations and intentions that they feel so much more dimensional and compelling than even a lot of contemporary female characters. The limits of the play’s feminism are clear though. All these characters still find it necessary to navigate a world that is ultimately dominated by men. Their victories are granted them by male counterparts. Oberon mercifully forgives Titania and breaks the spell on her. Oberon also orchestrates Helena’s obtaining of Demetrius. Hermia is free to marry Lysander when another man relinquishes his claim to her.

The gag where Lysander and Demetrius almost fall in love when they wake up is pretty weird. Like, two men falling in love? Good one. Anybody else?

One of my favorite elements of this play is its comedic subplot. Of the Shakespearean side-stories purposed for comic relief, A Midsummer Night’s Dream has my favorite. When I was in high school I played Flute in a Drew University summer production and that gave me an appreciation for just how dimensional these characters are compared to, say, Trinculo and Sebastian in The Tempest. Each of the players has a distinct set of mannerisms and traits that make them very compelling aside from their roles as a comedic side-show. I think that the play within the play is a great example of Shakespeare’s expert self-awareness. The fact that he would straightforwardly incorporate a Romeo and Juliet spoof indicates a commendable awareness of himself.