“And what’s he then to say that I play the villain?” Othello, Act 2 Scene 3

The above line begins what is perhaps one of the most famous speeches done by Shakespeare’s most notorious villain- indeed a character often espoused as one of the evilest villains in English literature. In this soliloquy, Iago lays bare to the audience how exactly he plans to bring about the downfall of Othello- using no less than the man’s own wife and most trusted lieutenant to do it. Indeed, at the root of Iago’s motives for causing the death of nearly every other major character in the play simply lies the fact that he doesn’t believe Othello the Moor should have power over him. This dastardly character has seen many actors step up to play him over the centuries with Sir Mark Rylance taking up the mantle most recently in the Globe’s most recent production of Othello. Given the media hype surrounding this production and Rylance’s reputation, I was expecting a stunning portrayal of this most infamous character.

Unfortunately, in his effort to prove to the audience how effortlessly he knows Shakespeare, he leaves much of what makes Iago, Iago behind. Instead, we were left with a pale shadow of this infamous character that left me both restless and wondering what exactly his motives were. This issue was further amplified throughout the performance as it is Iago’s schemes and actions that are the driving force of the story. Simply put, without Iago’s villainy, Othello is not a tragedy and the thoroughly defanged Iago that Rylance portrays leaves the audience wondering why Iago would bother in the first place.

“I know not if’t be true; But I, for mere suspicion in that kind, will do as if for surety.” Othello, Act 1 Scene 3

Iago is cruel, cunning, heartless, and willing to ruin the lives of many who trust him over the flimsiest of reasons. He kills Roderigo and his own wife to keep them from revealing his involvement, maims Cassio, and fans Othello’s jealousy until he is driven to kill Desdemona, the guilt of which then leads Othello to kill himself as well. “Trustworthy” Iago is solely responsible for the pile of bodies left onstage at the end of the play and language, until the very end, is his sole weapon of accomplishing this bloodbath. In this light, the drastic cuts made to many of Iago’s lines and speeches are almost criminal in the way that they further reduce an already underwhelming portrayal. Iago lays bare the depth of his plans and why he feels he must go through with them in many soliloquys to the audience. While it is downright encouraged to cut plays as lengthy as Othello down, I can’t help but feel the cuts chosen in the Globe’s latest production leave out much of the art that is Iago. His carefully constructed plans are never really spoken of, which leads most of his actions to feel opportunistic and seized in the moment instead of the carefully pre-meditated Machiavellian schemes that they are. Iago’s motivations are stripped down to the bare bones in such a way that it is no longer clear why he takes many of the actions that he does other than to perhaps prove that he is an unmitigated bastard that simply does not care what happens as long as he is alive at the end of it.

Iago, as Shakespeare first wrote him, is a villain that rings unmatched through time- one that still today is used as a litmus test with which to measure all other villains. Quite disappointingly, the Globe’s latest Iago doesn’t live up to this legacy and, because of this, leaves the production in many ways quite unremarkable as the piece is missing the villain that drives it all.

“Men should be what they seem, Or those that be not, would they might seem none!” Othello, Act 3 Scene 3

Tartuffe is perhaps one of the most famous comedies written by Moliere and is still performed regularly to this day. In this latest rendition of Tartuffe done at the Theater Royal Haymarket, Gérald Garutti and Christopher Hampton collaborated to create a new adaptation that is in both French and English- a presumably fitting and interesting tribute to the ways that the French and English languages, have interacted and affected each other since the Norman conquest in 1066. Now, as a general rule, I find multi-lingual productions of just about any theatrical piece to be fascinating (this approach increases accessibility, puts languages and their cultures in direct conversation with each other, and brings artists of many backgrounds together for the sole purpose of creating art, to name just a few of the possible outcomes). Quite frankly, I had high hopes for this production, especially given the long history between the two countries and the limitless possibilities that could come into play based on this between the characters of Tartuffe. Unfortunately, I was left quite disappointed as the bilingual aspect of the show was never fully developed in favor of other points the creative team wanted to make. This left the changes between French and English feeling almost arbitrary and nonsensical as they were seemingly done at random with little justification as to why they were taking place.

The production concepts behind Christopher Hampton’s adaptation were certainly ambitious enough. Tartuffe, was not only to be performed in both French and English, but was also then set in modern-day Los Angeles. Tartuffe himself rings true to the leaders of mega churches and televangelists found all around the U.S.- the ones who promise salvation or healing or whatever a person might need if only you keep sending them more money. Those who prey off the desperate in the name of salvation provide an excellent parallel to what a modern-day Tartuffe character might be. Indeed, many televangelists only begin to face repercussions when their greed becomes too great to ignore, as Tartuffe does when he tries to usurp Orgon’s place and take ownership of his property. This production could have been quite interesting indeed had it been decided to focus on the effects of monetized religion in America and would have presented a more cohesive picture than what made its way onstage.

Gérald Garutti chose to overhaul the ending of Tartuffe and replace the deus-ex-machina King character that brings Tartuffe to justice with that of Donald Trump. Pending on how one interprets the end of Moliere’s script, this parallel drawn could be both interesting and apt. A rich businessman gaining power and then using it to protect other rich businessmen is certainly not an unfamiliar notion and, indeed, could provide cutting social commentary if done well. Garutti and Hampton, unfortunately, present a caricature of a final scene where they assume that the audience knows nothing about the events of the past two years and is thereby quite heavy-handed in packing the “greatest hits” of the Trump candidacy and administration into the final ten minutes of the play. Given how polarizing a character Donald Trump is, and how much he has and continues to dominate the new cycle this approach reads as heavy-handed and in poor taste. It leaves the audience feeling ever so slightly sympathetic for Tartuffe- who is supposed to be the villain of the piece. Above all, what this production suffered most from was its refusal to focus on just one of its many production concepts that, individually, would have made for a fascinating and relevant rendition of Tartuffe. In its refusal to do so, the audience is left with a vague idea of many unrealized concepts that leave the production feeling disjointed and without the grace and genius of the original.