"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge."

While reading Titus Andronicus, I couldn't help but think of the television show Revenge. Both the play and the television series are essentially centered around a woman's thirst for vengeance, despite being presented as the typical tale of the epic hero's fall.

In Titus Andronicus, the play really gets going after Tamora's son is killed. Pretty much everything that happens - Lavinia's rape, Bassianus's murder, etc. - is a result of Tamora's desire for revenge. Similarly in Revenge, Emily Thorne (the character around whom the show is centered) is somewhat of a Tamora figure who is determined to avenge the supposed framing and murder of her father. It is very interesting to see how both Emily and Tamora are either presented or perceived (by people in their respective fictional realms, and outside those realms) as psychotic, villainous characters.

However, what I appreciate about Revenge is that instead of forcing Emily to fit into a Madonna/whore binary, the show allows her character to have depth and complexity - just like a real woman does. Emily can be conniving and ruthless, but no matter what kind of twisted things she does, she still has her humanity. Instead of painting Emily as a woman who is evil to the core, the show places the emphasis on her actions - and not all of her actions are bad. Emily is frequently depicted showing remorse for those that she injuries on her quest for revenge, including people who have betrayed her.

On the other hand, Shakespeare, in Titus Andronicus, doesn't afford Tamora much humanity. By contrasting Tamora with the angelic Lavinia, Shakespeare presents Tamora as the "whore". Not once does she seem like an actual human being - she's just a fair-skinned devil.

Perhaps if Tamora's character was given more humanity (such as in Julie Taymor's film interpretation of the play), I would've enjoyed the play more.

This all led me to think about the reason that we still have so many strict gender binaries even though we are centuries past Shakespeare's time. If women are constantly being presented in literature and pop culture as either vindictive wenches or virginal paragons of virtue, then that's what people will expect women to be. Revenge (even with their many flaws) are a step in the right direction.

 It is a bit sad that we aren't at a place where we can see ridiculous representations of women and critique them or understand the irony behind those representations, but shows like

Until our society is at a point where it is the norm for female characters to be portrayed with the same complexity as male characters, I'll take solace in the fact that it's the genius female characters like Emily and Tamora who are responsible for some epic revenge.

Female Revenge Plot: Then and Now

Although Tamora is essentially cast as the evil queen/manipulator/adulterer of Titus Andronicus, I feel her role in the revenge plot is sorely underappreciated. Today, revenge plots and/or diabolical females are pretty huge in Hollywood films (ex. Law Abiding Citizen; Maleficent). What then, would Shakespeare think of a movie like Kill Bill? Or, even more interesting: what would Tamora think of the Bride? For starters, both Titus Andronicus and Kill Bill would likely reach about a 9.5/10 on the gore-scale. They also follow the same general plot: Tamora seeks revenge on Titus for destroying her kingdom and sacrificing her firstborn son; the Bride goes after Bill, her former assassin boss and the father of her lost child. Most importantly, both females are survivors: Tamora survives the destruction of the Goth empire and the Bride survives her wedding-day massacre.

A major downside on Tamora’s reputation is the fact that she orchestrates the rape of Lavinia. Yes, that’s horrible. But it’s not far off from what the women of Kill Bill do to one another. In a similar grimace-worthy encounter, the Bride kills her former assassin friend, Vernita, right in front of her young daughter. That, too, is pretty low. Neither woman should be considered a monster, when they are simply driven in their revenge.

Some additional similarities in plot include rape and illegitimate babies. However, the ways in which the women handle these situations differ. Because of societal restrictions, Tamora is forced to give up her interracial baby to avoid being caught as an infidel. The Bride’s child, also a lovechild, would have at least been accepted in society. Regardless, both babies are lost (sacrificed or missing) tragically.

The rape culture of Titus also differs from that of today. Lavinia’s rape caused her death: death in social status, self-worth, and physical being. In Kill Bill, the Bride easily enacts her vengeance. In both cases, tongues are lost: Lavinia is mutilated by her rapists, but the Bride mutilates her rapists. Lavinia would never have been able to actively seek revenge on her rapists. Instead, her father commandeered the mission and made it about his own pride and honor.

However, getting back to Tamora and the Bride, there is one final difference: Tamora fails while the Bride succeeds. Tamora’s failure is likely due to the societal expectations of female villainy and the presence of a male revenge-seeker, Titus, who essentially stole all of Tamora’s thunder. To allude to the opening quote of Kill Bill, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” Unfortunately, Tamora literally eats that dish of revenge. But on the bright side, the Bride, fellow female vengeance-seeker, succeeds in killing EVERYONE who ever wronged her.

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.

Rape, Mutilation, and Cannibalism

Titus Andronicus has it all: human sacrifice, murder, rape, dismemberment, filicide, and cannibalism.

In the apparent anticlimax of the cannibal banquet scene, cannibalism is the play’s central metaphor and it provides a mechanism that victims and victors can demean/debase each other. In Titus, eating destroys, but produces no sustenance or regeneration for either party like normal eating is supposed to do. This is not the only play in which cannibalism exists and it is interesting to note that it still exists in modern day movies and TV series. Cannibalism for Titus is used as a medium to convey emotions of love and revenge.

Tamora only has a few seconds of horror after being exposed to her son’s whereabouts before being killed, and has no time for anguished speech. Tamora is the first of many to die in this gruesome final scene, and by having everyone in the scene who partook in the cannibalism killed, I feel that Shakespeare does not view cannibalism as socially acceptable.

In comparison to Titus Andronicus is a modern day satire episode of South Park. In “Scott Tenorman Must Die,” Cartman is tricked by an older boy (Scott Tenorman) that buying pubic hair from him will make Cartman reach puberty. When Cartman realizes that he has been tricked, he plots his revenge on Scott. Cartman tries various methods to get his money back, but is outwitted by Scott each time. Cartman eventually plans a chili cook-off, Cartman plans an elaborate scheme similar to Tamora and Aaron’s that results in the killing of Scott’s parents. Cartman then cooks Soctt’s parents in his chili and serves it to Scott.

Episode link if you want to watch it: 

http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s05e01-scott-tenorman-must-die

I would argue that Tamora was better off being killed after eating her children then to live with the memory and disgust like Scott has to in South Park (though they are both fictional stories). Similar to Titus Andonricus, Cartman also uses cannibalism to enact revenge, yet it differs because it does not have as gruesome of an ending outside of the cannibalism.

If you are further interested: Pictures from theatrical versions of Titus Andronicus. 

Warning: Contains graphic images.

https://transmedialshakespeare.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/rape-mutilation-and-cannibalism-shakespeare-style/