Body Language: Gore as Metaphor in Visual Media

In media involving physical performance, like theater and film, the human body becomes another weapon in the writer's storytelling arsenal. The body's posture and movements can speak volumes about a character before they even open their mouth; the way a character chooses to clothe and present their body gives hints about their background and values. There are also less conventional ways of using the figure to convey information - for example, distorting and perverting the expected human form to create an disarming language of visual metaphor. In other words, gore.

Shakespeare uses gore to great effect throughout Titus Andronicus, but nowhere is the meaning behind it more clear than with Lavinia's maiming. It's not a subtle technique; the characters who assault her go out of their way to explain to the audience why they've done what they've done to her. Her wounds harken back to mythology Shakespeare's audience would have been familiar with, with her tongue and hands cut away to render her mute and prevent her from identifying her attackers. In a grander sense, her injuries are the silencing of a female voice, particularly one that could be disruptive to a patriarchal status quo.

As Shakespeare's work was intended to be performed, not read, an actor would have portrayed Lavinia's disfigured body on stage. The characters around her make abundantly clear with their lines what the injuries she's suffered signify, but even before those lines are uttered, the audience would see her body maimed and understand the intent behind it. The visual would have been a powerful indicator of Lavinia's new position in the world.

Techniques for simulating gore have naturally improved since the days of the Globe, and visual media continue to convey story through carefully crafted viscera. A good recent example is NBC's series Hannibal, based on the tetralogy by Thomas Harris. The show centers around Will Graham, a profiler working for the FBI, and his friendship with his psychiatrist, the culturally ubiquitous Hannibal Lecter. While Dr. Lecter is naturally the story's main antagonist, Will encounters other violent tableaus in his work, each of which is a deliberate addition to a growing repertoire of thematic imagery that repeats throughout the show.

The scene above marks the first on-screen death of a recurring character - Beverly Katz, a forensic pathologist who works out what Dr. Lecter is up to, at the cost of her life. Dr. Lecter affords her the same 'consideration' he does all of his victims, aesthetically arranging her body for her coworkers to find. Though the tableau is incredibly morbid, it, like every other murder scene portrayed in the show, is designed by the showrunners to convey information about Beverly's character and the meaning of her death to the audience without relying on verbal cues.

Beverly had spent the story increasingly divided between loyalty to the FBI and loyalty to Will Graham, her friend, who encouraged her to begin an off-duty investigation of Dr. Lecter. The visual nod to that component of her story is fairly obvious; the part of her that sided with and supported Will, represented by the left half of her body, was ultimately the part that got her killed, and is the part dismantled by Dr. Lecter, while the right side of her body remains intact and undisturbed.

There are a number of other things at play in Beverly's tableau - a reference to her work in pathology, and, naturally, the aesthetic of raw meat - and it, too, makes a nod to contemporary art, specifically exhibits like Bodies, which display cross sections of human remains for the purpose of education. And much like Lavinia, Beverly is silenced by her maiming; the name of her attacker dies with her voice, and the characters who loved her are left with aimless anger.

Both Titus Andronicus and Hannibal are full of other examples of gore being used as a visual mode of storytelling, and both demonstrate the uncanny narrative power of deliberately distorted bodies.

Cannibalism in Titus Andronicus and Hannibal

While for the most part following along different lines, Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus and the television show Hannibal (a series following the notorious Hannibal Lecter of the Red Dragon series prior to his arrest) do maintain one crucial connection; cannibalism. Each work utilizes the consumption of fellow humans as a central aspect of the narrative (though, admittedly, the cannibalism in Titus Andronicus only appears near the conclusion of the play whereas Hannibal deals with the concept in the majority of its episodes). However, the primary detail connecting these pieces isn't the cannibalism on its own; without further context, this would prove a bit weak in connecting two so different works. Rather, it is the specific act of tricking others into cannibalizing then watching said act that proves most interesting within these pieces, and the relationship this has with the piece’s audience.

            In Titus Andronicus, Titus tricks Tamora into eating a pie cooked from her own deceased sons; he does this as an act of revenge, to repay Tamora for the crimes/wrongs she has committed against Titus and his family. Alternatively, in Hannibal, Lecter does not act out of revenge. Rather, he appears to gain pleasure simply from the act of tricking others into becoming cannibals (and for other, no more revenge based reasons later on in the show (spoilers!)). In each case, the act appears sickening, a grotesque oddity; yet it proves enthralling not only to the characters of the play/show, but to the audience as well. In the case of Titus, one might argue that this is because of the fulfillment of his revenge, the audience rooting for Titus as he avenges dear Lavinia. However, when the aspect of revenge is removed, such as the case with Hannibal, the question remains. What draws an audience to, if not sympathize, than at least continue to follow the actions of such a malevolent character/action?  Not only this, but why would a work such as Titus Andronicus fall somewhat by the wayside (in regard to its appearance/prevalence in the modern “spotlight”) when Hannibal, with its similarly gruesome content, has become so popular? 
Also to consider is the focus placed on gender by another cannibal portrayed in Hannibal, Garret Jacob Hobbes. While this man similarly performs acts of cannibalism and tricks his family into doing the same, he also restricts his victims to only young, brunette woman of the same age and general appearance as his daughter. Hobbes does this, his daughter later claims, so that he won't be "forced" to kill his daughter herself. This adds something of an incestuous aspect to the situation, in addition to portraying an obsessive focus on gender and sexuality as well as the preservation of innocence (Hobbes' daughter's innocence) not apparent in the case of Hannibal himself but echoed by the treatment of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus. Thus the grotesque/twisted nature of Hannibal is further strengthened, once again raising the question as to its continual popularity despite the lessened interest in such works as Titus Andronicus.

 I would argue that it is perhaps due to the intimacy of the stage. Despite the work being a play, and the actions performed by the actors only imitations of cannibalism and other unsavory acts, the audience would likely feel more personally linked to the occurrences due to their actual closeness/presence in regard to the acts. Alternatively, despite the much more graphically intense depictions found in Hannibal, its depiction through a television provides some degree of separation, a sort of barrier between audience and narrative. While this is just speculation (as I lack sample groups to poll regarding these questions), I feel this watching cannibals watch cannibals eat from behind a sort of two-way mirror could act along similar lines to the internet, anonymity providing some sense of “security.”

Of course hands can’t just be hands. What would Freud say?

In one of the most devastating scenes of Titus Andronicus, Lavinia begs Tamora for a quick death rather than suffer gang rape at the hands of Tamora’s sons. Hm. Hands. Hands are surprisingly prevalent throughout the play. Lavinia’s rape is much more gruesome because of the subsequent mutilation: Chiron and Demitrius cut out her tongue and both of her hands.  This was ostensibly done to prevent her from identifying her attacker, but the removal of Lavinias’ hands is also symbolic of her lack of agency. Her hands are referred to as “ornaments,” and Marcus implies their own only purpose was to hold a man “circling shadows kings have sought to sleep in.” Her hands held a certain kind of power that was lost when they were severed.

What other body part is representative of a person’s power, especially power held over others to seduce or “sleep in”? A penis. Or less specifically, genitals. Yes, Lavinia’s loss of limb was actually a representation of female castration because they were her source of the limited power granted to Elizabethan women: to seduce men.

Now, thinking of other body parts as genitalia is not unheard of. When Oedipus Rex gauges out his own eyes after discovering what he had done, Freud attributes his self-inflicted punishment as castration and compares his eyes to testicles. Hands, although not shaped like testicles, still represent power and human agency similar to a person’s sexuality and the sexual organs that represent it.

Severed limbs appear later in the plot as well when Titus dismembers himself as an attempt to save his sons’ lives. Why would Titus allegorically castrate himself? The emphasis isn’t on the hand lost, but the hand used to sever the other. By fooling the other characters who want to donate their hand into leaving the scene to fetch a sword, Titus excises control over the situation and creates agency guaranteeing his sacrifice in order to save his sons from the brink of death. The hand doing the actual sacrificing, representing the power wielded by a hand to bring his children to life, parallels to the power his penis wielded years before to create the sons in the first place.

Consider when Lavinia, Titus and company are exiting the scene of Titus’s dismemberment. Lavinia, who has just been upstaged by Titus because of the dramatic cutting off of his own hand, is forced to carry Titus’s hand between her teeth. (“Lavinia, thou shalt be employ'd: these arms!/Bear thou my hand, sweet wench, between thy teeth”). Clearly, Titus has dominated this scene and forces Lavinia’s problems into submission below his own. This is shown most graphically by the phallic symbol of Titus’s severed hand between her teeth, demonstrating Titus’s domination over Lavinia as even her sorrows become overlooked with Titus’s scheme.

This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

            In the play Titus Andronicus a capitalist and consumerist economy is established.  The women, particularly Lavinia, are the product on the assembly line and neatly packaged in the beauty standards set by the men in the play.  Therefore, in this economy, men are the consumers and drivers of the economy that deem a woman’s value by what services she can do for the male sex.

          This same idea is represented in the American capitalist economy where products are manufactured in a fashion that appeals to the consumer.  Products are then tailored to the consumer’s wants and needs, bought and then used.  Lavinia is a manifestation of this concept in that she was a greatly valued member of Titus’ family because of how she could further Titus’ place in Roman society as well as an “ornament” to the people of Rome.  She had a beauty that surpassed all others and an intelligence that was second to none but, above all Lavinia’s value was placed largely on her virginity.  Her virginity being the ultimate commodity, Lavinia’s role for the men in the play, as well as for the rest of Rome is created.

     

          Lavinia’s character is comparable to an expensive car; beautiful, sleek, sporty and good gas mileage.  To any ordinary consumer this is a high value product, a coveted monetary investment that is to be kept safe, cared for, and cherished.  Of course until it gets a totaled mercilessly by its ignorant owner who got a little arrogant and rough with it.  After being totaled the car has lost any and all value to the consumer and the capitalist system and is, with some regret, disposed of.

          Due to the course of events in Titus Andronicus, the same happens to Lavinia.  Her violently stolen virginity and mutilated body destroys her worth and thus deems her worthless to the men in her life who control the capitalist system.  Lavinia is unnecessary and like the totaled car, is a monstrous heap of junk that’s just taking up space and proving to be an embarrassment to her family and most of all her father’s honor.

           It isn't until the end of the play that Lavinia is murdered by her father, but the message rings through.  The world created in Titus Andronicus is dominated solely by men.  Men whose only use for women is just that: to harvest the services that women can provide.  It is through this process that women are given a price tag, a menial role in society, and the singular purpose of serving men.  And it is in this economic system that men are gods and women are mortals.  While the gods enjoy unending power and pleasure in their lives, the mortals below work for their system and their desires all the while under their thumbs.  Mortals, the essence of humanity and beauty, are slowly but surely usurped of any true purpose or freedom to live their lives the way they see fit, and thus are obliterated. 

Law and Order: Shakespeare Victim Unit

In the Play of “Titus Andronicus”, Shakespeare’s character Titus is a Roman general who gives up the throne to another and kills the son of Tamora, the Queen of Goths, who later plots revenge against him. This revenge is the rape and brutal savagery attack of Titus daughter, Lavinia, by Tamora’s sons, Demetrius and Chiron, who cut off Lavinia’s hands and tongue so that she will not speak of her rapists. Titus’s who has gone insane, kills Tamora’s sons Demetrius and Chiron and has them baked into a pie, which is eaten by Tamora and others. In the end, Titus has his revenge after killing his own daughter, and almost everyone important to the story is dead.

Given the plot of the play, how would Shakespeare react to the modern crime show “Law Order: Special Victims Unit.”

Let’s take a moment to explore how similar the two forms of entertainment are. “Law and Order : SVU’s” episodes are mostly filled with cases of rape and brutal murder, more than often enough young females. While the show’s main target of villains is perverts and aggressive men, once and a while the show’s victim is a victim of revenge, due to jealousy or wrath that the villain felt for the character. Shakespeare’s rape victim, Lavinia, is the product of revenge on Titus from Tamora, who ordered it for the death of her son. In addition to victims of crimes, Law & Order: SVU has the father or close confidant of the victim target the rapist out of revenge. In Shakespeare’s case, it is Titus killing and cooking Tamora’s sons into pies.

Both the show and the play portray the darker sides to humanity and society of mankind. Do you think that Shakespeare would be appalled by “Law and Order’s” plots? Is it possible “Law and Order: SVU” is inspired by the play of Titus Andronics? What are your thoughts?

A Tragedy of Principle

            In the article we read by Coppelia Kahn, Kahn asserts that “Lavinia…helped precipitate rape by boasting of her chastity…” (Kahn 64). From a psychological standpoint, I wondered why Lavinia decides to employ a biting tone unique to her otherwise reserved role in the play.
“’Tis thought you have a goodly gift in horning, / And to be doubted (suspected) that your Moor and you / Are singled forth to try experiments,” Lavinia says to Tamora upon seeing her with Aaron in the forest (2.3.67-9). After Chiron and Demetrius murder Bassianus, Lavinia becomes fiercer still. “Ay, come, Semiramis (Assyrian Queen with attributes of the Goddess of Lust Ishtar) – nay, barbarous Tamora, / For no name fits thy nature but thy own,” she scolds (2.3.118-9). Given that Lavinia does not give caustic criticisms or personal attacks at any other point in the play, why would she do so now, especially as she faces the wrath of Tamora and her sons?
            I’ve attached a link to a recent article examining the psychology of "slut shaming". According to Marisa Taylor, "slut shaming" has less to do with sexual behavior as was previously thought and more to do with social class. Sociologists followed fifty-three women from their freshman year of college until after graduation as part of a five year study, examining their social behaviors. Professor of sociology and organizational studies Elizabeth Armstrong noted that in general women who perceive themselves to be higher in the social hierarchy engage in "slut shaming", or “…the practice of maligning women for presumed sexual activity,” to make room for their own sexual promiscuity. The study concluded that the overall purpose of slut-shaming is to send a message to lower-class women that they aren’t welcome in high-status groups.
            Putting Lavinia’s actions in this contemporary perspective, I see two possibilities as to why she feels comfortable criticizing Tamora. Either Lavinia views Tamora as lower in Rome’s social order because of her outsider status (her “otherness”) and wants to make clear that she is not welcome or views herself as above or exempt from the kind of social order where Tamora is higher. I think that the latter is a much more interesting interpretation because it speaks to the patriarchal origins of Lavinia's belief system.
            From the play’s beginning, Lavinia is “Rome’s rich ornament” (1.1.52). Her agency is as a valuable object to Rome and most of the characters, namely men, for her ability to serve (you guessed it) men. Lavinia is an ornament, a jewel, a form of currency backed by the gold standard of her chastity. Following my “thesis,” Lavinia attempts to supersede Tamora in the social hierarchy by virtue of this status. Lavinia scorns Tamora’s sexuality to demonstrate that she believes she is higher in a society where Tamora is considered royalty as a matter of principle. Lavinia does not heed her situational reality (for Chiron and Demetrius are about to ravage her) or agency (for she has no agency of her own to lose as an object viewed in terms of her service to men). And since Lavinia is obviously not slandering Tamora's sexuality to make room for her own sexual promiscuity, I believe that Lavinia’s comments show her supreme adherence to patriarchal principles where a woman's sexuality may be put under a microscope at the expense of, well, women, leading only to women losing more and more of their agency through objectification overall. For Lavinia looks and more like a mute object than ever after her disfigurement, and Tamora goes on to willingly discard her agency as a woman (in becoming Revenge) while ironically looking like an object (without hands) in the movie we watched. What does everyone think?
           

 

Slut-shaming has little to do with sex, study finds

 

Here's the link to that study, if you guys are interested.

Lavinia's Story Retold with a Twist

     The great majority of women had very restricted social, economic, and legal statues. They weren't able to voice their opinion or make any decision on their own. In Titus Andronicus these expectations can be seen in Lavinia role where she is rendered as powerless even though she comes from a noble family. Lavinia was spoken of highly due to her beauty and her pureness.

   The same idea can apply when making the connection to the movie Maleficent but with a twist. In the movie Maleficent the main character is played by Angelina Jolie and she comes from a royal family but unlike Lavinia she held a great deal of power and was respected immensely due to having the biggest and strongest wings. 

 

   Both Lavinia and Maleficent end up losing what was considered their source of power and they are rendered as useless and even helpless. 

The only difference is that even when Lavinia gets raped and has her tongue as well as both her hands cut of she doesn't think of seeking revenge on those who did her wrong. She just relies on the male figure in her life to help her. Where as in Maleficent she is blinded by rage and betrayal that it fuels her even more when plotting her revenge on the person who cut of her wings. Maleficent breaks out of the expectations that are placed on what a woman can and can’t do. She doesn't wait around for a man to save her but rather takes matters into her own hands and in the end she is respected so much more and the best part is that after seeking her revenge she also gets her wings back where as Lavinia’s character is overlooked because she relies solely on her father and even than in the end he kills her. She never finds peace.

Queered Villainy Just Keeps Happening

While reading Shakespeare’s bloody “Titus Andronicus,” I couldn’t help but find a wellspring of commentary on harmful masculinity. For Rome and its patriarchy, Titus feels that he must kill Tamora’s son Alarbus at the beginning of the play, and this action sparks a revenge plot so twisted that by the end, for the patriarchy, Titus must kill his sullied daughter Lavinia to restore his entire family’s honor. Masculinity and patriarchy are the root of all evils.

So why hasn’t that message translated quite so well to the modern screen?

Of the men of the play, in terms of general terribleness, Chiron and Demetrius, Lavinia’s unrepentant rapists who are in it for the “fun,” top the list. In Titus (1999) they are depicted as Tamora’s golden boys, one with shoulder-length blond hair, and the other with short hair clearly bleached blonde. They embody 90’s era stereotypes about young goths (the black-wearing kind, not the long-gone civilization kind) as well as LGBTQ young men. They horse around, shout at each other, and even play video games – and if that last part doesn’t come straight out of theories about the Columbine shooting which took place earlier that year, I’ll eat my hat.

"Rape" even has moose antlers and blush.

It’s kind of incredible how de-masculinized they are in Titus, actually. In the play, the stage says that Chiron and Demetrius enter “braving,” presumably fighting with swords while arguing about Lavinia. It’s not hard to imagine a pair of knightly boys fencing over a woman, is it? Yet in the movie they are armed with tiny little daggers, and even rip their outer clothes off as they get into the fight, taking a bestial tone rather than a courtly one.

Then, to really hammer the nail in, they show up in their outfits for their mother’s cunning plan to trick Titus Andronicus. “Murder” appears in a tiger’s habit, and “Rape” appears in a bra and make-up, with an animal fur draped over his shoulders. They seem animalistic and feminine, especially next to Tamora (who really only resembles a very pointy knife-y Star Trek: Voyager Borg Queen). In plain words: they look really, really stereotypically weird-animal-queer.

Borg Queen on left, "Revenge" on right. See it?

So here’s my question to this adaptation of “Titus Andronicus.” Why are your rapists the most queer-coded characters in this story? Titus Andronicus is full of criticism of a heteronormative patriarchy. When you make Chiron and Demetrius deviant stereotypes, you take away some of the impact of that narrative, you know. Suddenly, there’s a force other than straight masculinity at play, and it’s not only doing harm, but it’s doing some of the most violent harm in the story.

Worse still, this cruelly mischaracterizes LGBTQ individuals, a problem which has been around in mainstream media for a while and shows no signs of going away.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) features the serial killer Buffalo Bill, infamous for his (or her?) long, drawn out scene where he horrifically dons his make-up and dances in womens’ skin – violating their bodies in a whole new way. Modern procedural shows like Psych and NCIS often have large casts without a hint of LGBTQ representation but episodes where lesbians and trans women are murderers.

If Titus was going for something “modern” and “edgy” with its interpretation of Chiron and Demetrius, I’m gonna say it completely missed the mark, falling short of even Shakespeare's commentary on masculinity, written in Elizabethan times. This film just played into some nasty tropes that harm people instead. 

The Tamora Effect: Bad-assery that tragically leads to Death

                                      “Same old song and dance my friends.”

                                                                            - Aerosmith

 The character of Tamora in Titus Andronicus is a strong woman who doesn't stand by and let men walk all over her. When her son was brutally executed and her pleas to Titus for mercy go unheard she takes matters in her own hands. Thus begins the vengeance plot that takes place in the play. It is Tamora’s survival instinct and willingness to use her beauty to expose and bring down her enemies that ultimately seals her fate.

      Back in Shakespeare’s time and reflected in Titus Andronicus, is evidence that a woman is judged by her beauty, and what her body can achieve for the advancement of their male counterparts, and that once a woman is deemed useless, is quickly extinguished. Our example in this case is poor Lavinia, our friendly neighborhood ornament, and tragic pawn in Shakespeare’s topsy-turvy Roman world. Her beauty (namely her virginity), is held in higher regard than her own life. The tension between Tamora and Lavinia plays into the Virgin/Whore complex that still is going strong today. The history of American drama takes a page from Shakespeare plays. Some of the most famous American plays apply the Tamora Effect. 

In modern film and television, Tamora still exists today. 2012’s Snow White and the Huntsman is a perfect example of this. The film stars Kristen Stewart as the virginal Snow White fighting for good, and the amazing Charlize Theron portraying the beautiful ass-kicking evil queen obsessed with youth. It is easy to see that Theron is the Tamora to Stewart’s Lavinia. Both the film and the play have similar plot lines, and both end in the death of the “sinful”, and the triumph of the “pure”. Both Tamora and Ravenna have power and don’t mind doing what is necessary to get what they want. This we all know, means that Ravenna has stepped into male territory, and therefore has to die. Both the movie and the play feature power plays involving fathers and daughters as well. 

            As for me, I personally always root for the Tamoras’ and Ravennas’ of the world because women should be allowed to flex their intellectual and physical muscle without fear of retribution in the form of ostracism, Cucking stools, rape, amputation, and death.

The Performance Timeline for Titus Andronicus: Is it the blood?

published 1600 

       It’s no shock that Titus Andronicus is rarely staged in this day in age, as it is so gruesome. However, this isn’t a pattern that is new to this millennium. Titus Andronicus performances were thin and few during its first debut, the play was popular and received positive feedback, in fact, in 1604, it was ranked higher than Romeo and Juliet. There is a gap during leading up to the Restoration period where there are no documented performances of Titus Andronicus, but Shakespeare historians do not believe that this is indisputable proof that it was not being performed.

       During the 1600’s several adaptations of Titus Andronicus were written and performed. The most famous in 1678, written by Edward Ravencroft, mainly alters the ending of the Shakespeare tragedy. His ending, where Aaron has been suspended on a rack during the unraveling of Titus’s dinner, ends with Lucius sentencing. Aaron. Ravecroft’s adaptation was extremely successful in the theater realm. His adaptation was performed regularly.

      
      The years of 1725—1838 were sad years for Titus Andronicus, there was a complete absence in its performance. The trends of theatre of the time resulted in a dismissal from the horror genre, causing for many of Shakespeare’s play to undergo a time of absence. Come 1839, Titus Andronicus is performed not only for the first time in 100 years, but also for the first time in the United States. It is noted that the play was dormant again throughout 1861—1922.

Headline from The Telegraph, A UK based news outlet 

       More recently, a headline reads, “Globe audience faints at 'grotesquely violent' Titus Andronicus.” 5 audience members reportedly fainted during the performance. Many supposedly fainted because of the amount of blood shed. Is Titus Andronicus underperformed/performed sporadically because of staging complications, because of the portrayal of females and chastity, or is it really just too gruesome for your average theater—goer to handle?