Titus Andronicus is seldom staged and even more rarely filmed, although I understand that there were as much as three (!) U.S. film versions during 1999-2000 alone, of which I have only seen Taymor's magnificent Titus.
But, I have just watched BBC's 1985 production of the play, and I found it brilliantly superb and highly moving. I am a deep appreciator of Shakespeare, and I find Titus to be one of the Bard's best plays, wanting to categorize it with Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Macbeth and the other great tragedies. Note how, in Othello, Iago refuses to speak, but Aaron does no such thing; he recounts one more horrible deed after the other, forcing the listeners to shut him up! Surely this shows us what Iago would have said, had he been inclined to speak! I can only assume that the reason this play has been so neglected by stages and film producers alike is that it is very much off the mainstream in its type of plot and action, being excessively horrific and over-dramatic, almost to the point of the ridiculous. But Shakespeare in fact can sustain this level of drama, and so can a serious production, as can be seen both here and in Taymor's surrealist 1999 masterpiece.
The BBC version is in many ways a classical/traditional production, relying on the actors and the words more than the stage visuals. And these actors pull it off to perfection. The Greek garb of the chorus, and the general likeness to Greek tragedy is overwhelmingly realized, demonstrating how Shakespeare could take the dramatic stylism of the Antiquity and magnify it tenfold, entirely surpassing the original and adding nigh-infinite new layers of substance of his own.
The strongest scene is shortly after Lavinia's tragedy, when the entire Andronicus family huddles together to wallow in their maddening, unbearable sorrow. For such a scene alone, this production deserves a 10 out of 10 rating. Yet, I hold off one point for a variety of reasons, chief of which is that the final scene with the cannibalistic feast is not quite grotesquely horrific enough - see Taymor's version for a better realization! Also, yes, the death of Aaron's child. It's true that it should remain alive as a symbol of hope; a symbol of innocence not necessarily having to answer for the sins of the father. Or, as a smaller, less dangerous version of its father, which is necessary and integral to human nature; something we can "acknowledge ours", as Prospero does with Caliban.
Lastly, a pet peeve: Lavinia's having to carry her father's severed hand between her teeth. This was used in both of the versions I've seen, but I just don't believe that Shakespeare would subject any character, much less a woman, to something as absurd as this, even in a play like this. I simply don't think it jibes with the rest of the play. I believe with all my heart that the "teeth" bit is a corruption by hands other than Shakespeare's, coming from the non-authoritative Quarto 1. I much prefer the Folio version, which I believe (in this case) to be an authorial version, and saying that she must carry the severed hand between her arms. Just my two cents!
9 out of 10.
But, I have just watched BBC's 1985 production of the play, and I found it brilliantly superb and highly moving. I am a deep appreciator of Shakespeare, and I find Titus to be one of the Bard's best plays, wanting to categorize it with Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Macbeth and the other great tragedies. Note how, in Othello, Iago refuses to speak, but Aaron does no such thing; he recounts one more horrible deed after the other, forcing the listeners to shut him up! Surely this shows us what Iago would have said, had he been inclined to speak! I can only assume that the reason this play has been so neglected by stages and film producers alike is that it is very much off the mainstream in its type of plot and action, being excessively horrific and over-dramatic, almost to the point of the ridiculous. But Shakespeare in fact can sustain this level of drama, and so can a serious production, as can be seen both here and in Taymor's surrealist 1999 masterpiece.
The BBC version is in many ways a classical/traditional production, relying on the actors and the words more than the stage visuals. And these actors pull it off to perfection. The Greek garb of the chorus, and the general likeness to Greek tragedy is overwhelmingly realized, demonstrating how Shakespeare could take the dramatic stylism of the Antiquity and magnify it tenfold, entirely surpassing the original and adding nigh-infinite new layers of substance of his own.
The strongest scene is shortly after Lavinia's tragedy, when the entire Andronicus family huddles together to wallow in their maddening, unbearable sorrow. For such a scene alone, this production deserves a 10 out of 10 rating. Yet, I hold off one point for a variety of reasons, chief of which is that the final scene with the cannibalistic feast is not quite grotesquely horrific enough - see Taymor's version for a better realization! Also, yes, the death of Aaron's child. It's true that it should remain alive as a symbol of hope; a symbol of innocence not necessarily having to answer for the sins of the father. Or, as a smaller, less dangerous version of its father, which is necessary and integral to human nature; something we can "acknowledge ours", as Prospero does with Caliban.
Lastly, a pet peeve: Lavinia's having to carry her father's severed hand between her teeth. This was used in both of the versions I've seen, but I just don't believe that Shakespeare would subject any character, much less a woman, to something as absurd as this, even in a play like this. I simply don't think it jibes with the rest of the play. I believe with all my heart that the "teeth" bit is a corruption by hands other than Shakespeare's, coming from the non-authoritative Quarto 1. I much prefer the Folio version, which I believe (in this case) to be an authorial version, and saying that she must carry the severed hand between her arms. Just my two cents!
9 out of 10.