Inspired by Wood’s article about Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, I downloaded the kindle book to sate my instant gratification and then, feeling intellectually unable to chew the meat of reading, I chose to drink the softer fare that is the 2011 film Coriolanus starring Ralph Fiennes, which adopts the Shakespearian dialogue in a more modern setting.
I’ve just finished watching it and so wanted to share my mental notes.
The Role of Wife and Mother
In the movie, the wife and mother are introduced together, yet it is the mother who speaks more, has more lines, whom Coriolanus speaks to more, and listens to more. I think from a literary perspective it speaks to the mother knowing Coriolanus best and to Coriolanus respecting her best. The wife’s pleading, and even their sons pleading, do not move him at the end of the film, but it is the mother, who is in turn rewarded for her efforts at peace.
From a literary perspective I am sure there is much better meaning to be drawn from this, but off the top of my head the fact that wife, mother, and son are almost always together tells me that they are to be taken as a unit. The mother is the iron in his veins, the wife is the gentleness in his heart, and the son is the future he wants to build. When Rome banishes Coriolanus, he is separated from his heart and his future, and has only the iron in his genetics. That is also why the heart-wrenching appeal from his iron mother for the future of Rome moves him.
I do not think these were healthy relationships.
What Profiteth It A Man To Give Up His Soul For The Whole World
I may have misremembered that scripture. Coriolanus in the film knows how he feels but doesn’t know what he wants. He feels contempt for the plebs, and is unwilling to compromise on that feeling. He is essentially given the consulship, as the spoils of war. He doesn’t know whether he wants it as a title, wants it for his political career, wants it as spoils as such. He is willing to compromise what he wants in order to protect what he feels. He wants the consulship, but it’s not worth it if he has to surrender his contempt for the plebs.
Going From Crowd To Crowd
It was also interesting how Coriolanus went from crowd to crowd to gain and then lose their love and trust. When he first asks for the approbation of the crowd, they give it to him. Then the agitators take it away. Then he is exiled and goes to Aufidius, and wins the love and approbation of the Volscian army, and then with the peace treaty loses it. When your goal is to please the people, the first question is which people and the second question is why, anything after that tackles what do they want and things like that. Being a people pleaser killed Coriolanus.
This reminded me of the recent discussion about the Church and is a good reminder that the people who complain about the Church now will complain about the Church even if she surrenders her soul and gives in to every demand. It is the proper role of the Church to demand something of people, it is the proper role of a sovereign, of a father, to demand something of the people, of his sons. The demand must be done in justice, but the demand cannot go the other way. A son cannot demand respect from his father, but a father can demand respect from his son. Coriolanus didn’t demand respect but he didn’t give it either. When he sought respect because it was necessary, the people took the only lever they had over the man and killed him with it. The people will crucify the Church the same way if she begins to acquiesce.
Know Your Role
Coriolanus was a military man who stepped into the world of politics. Menenius was a politician who stayed out of the world of war. Know your limits, know the things you are good at. It’s like what is popularly referred to as the Peter principle: you rise to your level of incompetence.
Refreshing Truth
Coriolanus was kind of a Trumpian character, or vice versa. You got the sense he said what he felt and said what he meant and you didn’t have to read tea leaves to figure it out. It is refreshing. People crave truth. Public discourse would be so much nicer if we had trust in what people were saying. It also plays all your cards: You can’t get anything done if you tell everyone your plans, because the secretive conspirators will always keep their plans secret and work against your own.
Aufidius as Foil, or as Macguffin?
I realized in writing this that I haven’t talked about Aufidius very much. He’s set up kind of like a foil but doesn’t operate like one. He’s a means to the literary end, a macguffin that moves the story–at least, the way he’s set up in the movie.
If I had to force him into the role of a foil, I would say he is living the life Coriolanus wished he lived. He had the respect of his men, and he earned it on merit. He knew what he wanted, was connected to some transcendent cause for the Volscian people and not for himself. He only talks about his feelings in connection with hating Coriolanus, but otherwise is not presented as a very deep character.
Connecting our work to the transcendent gives us meaning and purpose, and this is a great example of that. Materialism vs. Transcendence. And Transcendence is the only party that didn’t need or even try to compromise. In the end, it was guided by the same set of values it always was guided by, and the pursuit of those values allows Aufidius to kill Coriolanus without issue.
This was a great recommendation and a great movie. Lots to chew on!
AMDG
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 