Vengeance does not Provide Everlasting Satisfaction William Shakespeare’s literature has history of staged and film reproductions. Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s famous revenge tragedy play, stands as no exception to the previous statement. David Foley McCandless uses Julie Taymor’s play and film versions of Titus Andronicus to show the opposing impacts of violence each has on the audience (489). Taymor’s visions correlate to modern society’s tendencies of vengeance, and how the characters in the play were shaped by revengeful occurrences over the course of the play.

McCandless signifies the chaos and vengeance displayed by Titus throughout the play result from the failure of traditional power in Rome (490). During the first acts of the play, Titus returns a military hero and shows his beliefs in traditional Roman culture. In both of Taymor’s renderings of the play Titus shifts from armored warrior to weeping grandpa in distressed appearance (490). Titus’s shift from valiant to helpless is provides the audiences of both the film and staged production to sense the effects of a corrupted Roman empire. McCandless connects Titus’s demise from military hero demeaned by Roman society, to the Vietnam vet’s dislocation in society after the war (490). The mood of the audience is sorrowful, as Titus appears to be directly following the path of Rome, in what traditionally is such a powerful and fair empire, in falling apart as a result from a corrupted emperor and revenge minded wife. McCandless provides how the collapse of Rome leaves Titus nullifying his values, losing what formerly were the pillars of his self. Viewers of Taymor’s renderings can feel for Titus and his tumbling downfall, in how he was built to respect and cherish Roman culture, and now the collapse has left him with almost no sense of self. McCandless directs Titus fall from grace to Lavinia and her opposing characterizations in each of Taymor’s renderings (503). McCandless uses Lavinia’s rape as different portrayals in Taymor’s two versions of the play as another key assertion. In Taymor’s on stage version of Titus Andronicus Lavinia’s rape is shown as a cheap entertainment and an act of anger in using imagery of Lavinia as a doe and Chiron and Demetrius as tigers (503). The crowd of the stage version feels a sense of shame and helpless emotions for Lavinia. Taymor uses Lavinia as another symbol of Rome’s decent into further and further corrupt behaviors. McCandless utilizes Taymor’s film version of hiding as much of the sexual violence involved, and directing more to the brutalizing actions made to Lavinia’s body (504). Taymor hides the actual rape to further signify Lavinia as someone who has had her whole life destroyed by the acts of Chiron and Demetrius. The audience of the film version experiences different emotions in a loss of words, and having sorrowful thoughts based more on the results the rape had on her physical self, instead of sadness of the actual rape. Lavinia’s two depictions are the key instigating events leading to Titus and his maniacal behavior during the rest of the play. The audiences of the film and stage productions are sculpted by the rape, pushing more into a mindset of hatred and revenge provoked attitude towards Tamora and her sons. The most conveying assertion made by McCandless is how in each ending Taymor uses in her reproductions of Titus Andronicus, leaves the audience in what can feel like a victorious mood, based on vengeance from what happened to Lavinia. In the on stage production, Taymor uses Aaron’s evil minded character as what the audience can feel as the lead antagonist throughout the play (508). Aaron’s lack of remorse shown by McCandless signifies the power of vengeance and violence stressed throughout the entirety of the play. The audience is left in a very awkward position at the end of the stage production, feeling both satisfaction of Aaron’s demise as a villain, yet also the mood of Aaron being a victim himself in his symbol as a black slave. The audience mood on slavery could be a direct result of how today’s society feels about the African American race, and how slavery has shaped modern America. Taymor’s film version ends entirely different than the stage version, leaving the audience with not only a gratifying mood, but a sense of fairness in how Young Lucius handles the Aaron situation. McCandless says in his last assertion, “Young Lucius’s triumphant exit from the Colosseum has the opposite effect, fortifying the Symbolic against the Real by staging a wish-fulfillment fantasy, a denouement uncomfortably comparable to a Hollywood Happy Ending (510). The above quote leaves the audience to feel satisfied with the vengeance suck out by Titus and Lucius, while still holding the sense of wonder and anticipation for what the future holds. Young Lucius decides to preserve Aaron, rather than just immediately killing him, leaving the audience to feel a sense of Rome returning to the original diplomatic nature of fairness. Young Lucius represents a hope for Rome, giving possibility the empire can return to old form, while also symbolizing a new, young Titus, in how Young Lucius acts in loyalty to Rome, and preservance of the empire over all else. Our class should read McCandless article to not only gain a better understanding of Titus Andronicus, but also come to the realization of how Taymor shaped her renderings to conform beliefs about the actions of the characters throughout the play. Taymor leaves the audiences of her renderings of Titus Andronicus not only with a sense of retaliation and redemption, but feelings of how vengeance changed the characters of the play. McCandless leaves belief for the audience to think with acts of revenge after Lavinia’s rape and Titus collapse, while stumping the audience with symbols of what the future holds for Rome.