Rough beginings indeed, though hope remains!

Here is my four page rough rough rough draft. I am still trying to decide what ideas i want to elaborate on. My citations are rough and I wasn't able to get into Refworks or some of the articles I have found on the Library's website. So the last two pages don't have the references or quotes to back them up that I will have in the finished paper.

Responses to my tweethis were few...one in fact. I got one like. Pitiful. I am, however, shifting my approach and am asking general questions about what makes a good villain and so forth. Any way, here is my ROUGH draft. It has certainly helped me to hone my thoughts in.

The Shakespearean villain is a fascinating and enduring element of literature. Shakespeare understood humanity well. He created complex and engaging villains who were genuinely terrifying. The question is how did he do this? These dastardly characters are developed through various means. Soliloquies give us a glimpse into the evil minds of men like Iago or Edmund. Through their soliloquies we learn of their motives and designs and are sometimes able to relate to them. They become personal and very real. Their motives of destruction and revenge must have certainly resonated with Elizabethan theater goers.  These methods have set the stage, so to say, for all generations of villains following Shakespeare and are still used today. Some of the most memorable villains of all drama and cinema have been based on this model. The Joker of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, like Iago, Edmund, and Don John before him, is a meticulously crafted villain who very much represents the fears of modern culture.

            Among the most gripping of Shakespeare’s evil doers is undoubtedly Iago. Iago is something of a mystery for critics and Shakespeare enthusiasts alike. The man hates Othello, his master, even though by his own admission the man is “of a constant, loving, noble nature” (Shakespeare, II. I). Analyzing the soliloquies of Iago gives a deep glimpse into his vicious mind and allows for some serious debate. One of the most intense topics is the motive of Iago. As previously expressed, the man is something of a paradox. The ambiguity of Iago’s motives arises because he often lists them in couples, as if to prove something to himself, and then never mentions them again (Spivack 10). His motives, Spivack says, “sink into oblivion, as far as Iago is concerned, for all the remainder of the play…”(10). This observation has given rise to the thought that Iago has been looking for a reason to betray Othello. This question regarding the inner drive of Iago is a topic of some intense debate.. Several contend that Iago is not as inexplicable as some like to believe. Charles Coe, in his book Shakespeare’s Villains, suggests that Iago’s anger at being passed over for a promotion is indeed the root of his crimes (16-17). However, in expressing his argument, Coe, sites another critic by the name of Coleridge. Coleridge sums up the counter argument by suggesting that Iago’s hatred is driven by “the motive hunting of motiveless malignity” (Coe 17). It appears that while Iago was certainly propelled on his villainous path by the loss of his promotion, that he indeed has harbored a malignant disposition, perfectly willing to commit terrible crimes. The soliloquies of Iago are our key to understanding him and his purposes.

Though the Joker does not have any soliloquies that allow the audience a glimpse at his innermost thoughts, he does give several monologues. The origin of his scars is often referred to, but is never the same story. The result of this is a desire for the audience to suppose that some youthful trauma is the Joker’s motive for all of the evil he causes. But by constantly refusing to give us any facts that can be trusted, the Joker tortures us as well and we are left to wonder what his motives are. As the movie progresses however, he does do something that Iago fails to do; he outright explains that he has no motive. Money and power do not interest him. He is an, “agent of anarchy” nothing more. It is this desire for senseless violence and destruction that creates such a terrifying character. His own life is of little importance to him.

            For us to be interested in a villain he must dictate the plot, not the other way around. Villains like Don John, who serve a simple function as a plot device, are interesting only as far as they push the story. Villains like Iago and the Joker, however, are fascinating in and of themselves. They are believable. Charles Coe suggests that we believe in Iago, “because we are fascinated by the craft and cunning he displays in his wickedness” (Coe 20). If the Joker or Iago simply went about following the role of the Don Johns or common crooks of superhero movies, we would not find them very interesting. It is their unpredictable and engaging ability to control events that keeps the audience engrossed in their every move, all the while horrified for the hero. According to Coe, “…Iago makes the plot; it seems to evolve from the workings of his own mind” (Coe 21). According to this analysis, it appears that Iago is the plot. Likewise, so is the Joker the plot of The Dark Knight. They do not only cause the story to move forward by providing conflict for the hero, they epitomize the conflict and propel it through their own criminal genius.            

            Another trait that is so engrossing in Iago is the apparent pleasure he takes in his actions. According to Maurice Charney, “there is a kind of gleeful gloating in Iago as he triumphs over the honest Othello,” (Charney xii). Indeed, Iago plays his role with a great deal of gusto. Coe observes that Iago’s range of performances is wide. He is the “chiding” husband, the wit, the rowdy drinking fellow, and the confidant. In fact, a fair amount of the comic relief comes from Iago’s quick wit and silver tongue. We are now presented with a seemingly inhuman monster who possesses all of the faculties of humanity. This makes him not only terribly relatable, but also disarmingly amusing.

            The iconic traits of the Joker are his macabre sense of humor, his wicked laugh, and twisted smile. Consider the scene of the film in which the Joker has added an “s” to the word laughter to produce the phrase, “Slaughter is the best medicine.” Disturbing, yet clever, this wittiness is ingrained deeply into his character. Heath Ledger, under Nolan’s direction, presented the audience with a Joker that within seconds could make you laugh and shudder. This ability of the character is directly reminiscent of Iago. The Joker is able to chat with his victim Harvey Dent as though they were awkward friends, converse philosophically with a policeman in the prison, and torment Batman with incessant teasing.

            Shakespeare drew his inspiration from a great number of sources. If his plotlines were derivatives of histories, legends, and previous plays; why not his villains? A short study into the history of English criminals reveals that Shakespeare may have based his villains upon the notorious criminals of his day. One account relates the capture and prosecution of a particularly villainous robber. The warden acting in true Shakespearean form entered the convict’s cell in disguise. There he tricked him into confessing all of the foul deeds he had perpetrated. These heinous crimes included multiple counts of adultery, theft, and brutal murders. All of these committed without the least shred of remorse. Another example is Guy Fawkes, whose plot to bomb parliament was prevented. He, when imprisoned, refused to answer their questions. He did not even give them his true name. Only after extensive torture did he finally tell the truth. We are not privy to the torture and death of Iago. It is doubtful whether he broke under strain, but a definite parallel can be seen.  When compared against Iago, Edmund, Gloucester, or Don John there are many similarities to be found. Each of these men is not only capable of murder, but seems to enjoy it. They are all traitors and usurpers, seeking to overthrow the government and established order of things. Perhaps they echo with the themes of a not to distant civil war and a commonwealth. It is, entirely plausible that Shakespeare did fashion his villains to genuinely frighten the populace. Villains have not changed much in this regard. They still follow this model. To truly be terrifying, they must embody what the people find frightening. After the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001, the climate of cinematic villainy has shifted towards terrorism. Acts of horrible mass violence have become the common element of villains. The Joker is perhaps one of the most poignant examples of this. He represents an ideaology without rules or order. His very essence is unpredictable. One moment he is cracking a witty remark and the next he is destroying a police station with a simple phone call. Our culture dreads inexplicable acts of violence. The Joker of The Dark Knight is a walking symbol of random acts of terror.

            In order for a Hero to be truly great he must be pitted against an incredibly formidable foe. Stories thrive through conflict. Though the conflict must not always originate in a single person, it often propels the story forward. Villains can act as stock characters or mere plot devices, or they can become something so much more. Shakespeare employed a wide spectrum of villains in order to create truly fascinating plays. Several of his characters are simply necessary pieces in moving the plot, like Don John or Oliver. However, there are those that not only cause the conflict, but fully epitomize it. Through detailed and psycholigicaly gripping soliloquies Shakespeare fashioned several villains who embodied the most visceral fears of 16^th century England. Shakespeare’s highly effective model is still in effect and is responsible for some of the greatest villains of all time. The Joker of The Dark Knight, like other similarly despicable characters, is clearly a descendent of Iago, Edmund, and the rest of Shakespeare’s reprobate band.