He's Not a Good Talker

I agree with what Shanon and Neal said. I also see how the Joker is capitalizing on Batman's emotions in the same way Sicinius and Brutus manipulated Coriolanus' humoral temperment. Throughout the entire clip, the Joker is baiting Batman. Though it appears Batman is in control, he is not. The Joker isn't physically harming him, but he retains control over Batman because of his ability to speak and manipulate words. Batman doesn't have this ability the same way Coriolanus doesn't have it. The tribunes are able to out-talk him and make him angry without Coriolanus realizing what they're doing. The Joker is able to talk circles around Batman and this provokes him. I haven't seen this movie yet, but I really want someone in it to say something about Batman's lack of eloquence the same way Menenius was trying to show that Coriolanus couldn't be expected to speak as well as everyone else.

Hypocrites

"Those mobfuls want you gone so things can go back to the way they were."

Like Neal said, Batman and Coriolanus are one in the same kind of character. They are heroes in there communities, but at the same time alienated from their people because the people fear that they can't trust them. The people are hypocritical of Coriolanus because here he is, fighting for Rome, risking his life, and he is getting nothing in return. They were already planning to throw him from his seat of power while he was ready to go fight for his country. The citizens can't even give him the respect he clearly deserves, making him an outcast.

Magic Trick Anyone?

After viewing the clip, I saw the connection to Coriolanus and Batman and how as soon as they did one bad thing the whole world ignored any good that they had done and ran them off "like a leper". Almost like magic the citizens change their minds. Coriolanus and Batman both have a dark side and come off a little abrasive, but they also fight for the safety of all citizens. Because they try to protect their city/country, they alienate themselves, and others take advantage of this situation. In this way, I can stretch the role of the Joker into the role of Sicinius and the other guy. The Joker capitalizes on the fact Batman is distancing himself from the people and uses it to turn them against him, similar to Sicinius and Brutus. Furthermore, the Joker and the tribunes end up making their respective opponents exile themselves.

On a side note that has nothing to do with the play. I went to go see that movie twice; both times the movie messed up so I still haven't seen the whole thing.

Batman and the Joker, paralleled with Aufidius and Coriolanus, have an intense rivalry.

Batman and the Joker are both similar to each other, as they are never part of the group. Their relationship, in some aspects, run paralell to the relationship between Aufidius and Coriolanus. As explained from the article, Aufidius and Coriolanus each express honor and policy, they each favor one quality over the other- Coriolanus practices policy in warfare but not civil afairs while Aufidius uses policy in the court but not during battle.

His Achilles Heel

After reading this passage, I was reminded of something that I read in the Humoural Personality Test:

"...a surplus (over 30%) of choler can become "burned" and eventually turn into melancholy (melan=black, choler=bile, in Greek). Meanwhile, the choleric will become acrid and negative; reactivity might be directed at the wrong objects"

Coriolanus seems to be too harsh on his family when he says, "I'll never/Be such a gosling to obey instinct, but stand/As if a man were author of himself/And knew no other kin." He is snubbing his family, and by doing so he is directing his anger "at the wrong objects," when really he should be heeding what his closest friends (Menenius) and family have to say because they're the only ones he can trust.

Also, Coriolanus recognizes that he is weak and spineless against his mother when he says "I melt, and am not/Of stronger earth than others" and "My mother bows,/As if Olympus to a molehill should/In supplication nod." His self-consciousness of the fact that he is not as strong as most people make him out to be portrays him as a humble man with faults just like any other, which is exactly what Shakespeare wanted in order to procure sympathy from the audience for the tragic hero.

Coriolanus' Declaration of Independence

I think that the passage really drives home the sense of abolutism vs. democracy that permeates the entire play. There is, i think a immediate reflex to begin the discussion of psychoanalysis, etc. But I think that it's much simpler than that. The passage really reveals Coriolanus' obsession with power, a need to drive and control his own destinyw ithout being subjecct to the will of others. We saw this time and again as Coriolanus had to deal with the citizens and resented them for their ability to controla nd have a say in his desinty. Here, it is especially poignant since he is speaking to his own family. It takes on the opposite conntation his dealings with the populace though, because he has respect for these people (the lines about his mother, comparing her to Olympus). Though the familial bond wins out in the end, Coriolanus announces his personal philosphy explictly with the lines "I'll never / Be such a gosling to obey instinct, but stand / As if a man were author of himself/ And knew no other kin." (V.iii.34-37)

The Final Battle

Although I agree with Kara's point about treating his love like a disease and "bleeding it out" in a way, I think this passage marks how truly vulnerable Coriolanus is, especially in front of his mother. Although this particular quote is harsh since he is basically denying his family ("I'll never / Be such a gosling to obey instinct, but stand / As if a man were author of himself / And knew no other kin"), this is also his final moment of strength. After he delivers this speech, his mother opens her mouth and it all goes downhill from there. It is interesting how he refers to his mother's bow: "My mother bows, / As if Olympus to a molehill should / In supplication nod." He seems a bit taken aback by the fact that his mother, Olympus, is bowing to him, a molehill, a small mound. Despite his warrior strength, he is once again faced with the one person that is stronger than him, the one force that could dominate him completely -- his mother. He recognizes the power that she has over him, so as an attempt to not give in to her dominance, he tries to do away with the familial ties as a defense mechanism in order to avoid becoming vulnerable to her once again. Unfortunately for him, he ultimately fails as his mother wins in all aspects of glory.

But humoralism doesn't apply to feeling...?

(same passage I wrote about on my blog! sweet!)

After having resolutely decided to sack Rome with the Volscians, his family comes to 'talk sense to him.' Coriolanus tries to steel himself "But out, affection!" -- by treating his love like an infection--willing it out of his body as he would blood on a battlefield (linking this passage back to the discussions we had in class about humoralism). However, as the following lines show, Coriolanus' resolve is withering away by his mother's words: "My mother bows, / As if Olympus to a molehill should / In supplication nod" -- and his son cries "Deny not!" as though telling Coriolanus not to deny their existence in his life, or not to deny the affection he feels for them.
Perhaps it's that love and affection are such foreign feelings to Coriolanus that, to him, they are akin to a disease of sorts.

Away With Family

The above passage clearly demonstrates the conviction that Coriolanus has with his revenge against Rome. He acknowledges this woman as the person who gave him life, but disregards this fact and continues his previous stance. Additionally, Coriolanus gives credence to his wife and young Martius, but forces his "affection" out. Although the audience finds out momentarily of Coriolanus' change in decision, up until now he seems as stubborn as ever. The people that care and love him the most have just entered the scene, and the only thought process that occurs in his mind is how he needs to disregard them. I am relieved that in just a few pages, Coriolanus has a change of heart, and decides to cancel his previous plans. We have seen in former tragedies how deception between family has played a critical role--but I think deceiving one's own wife, let alone mother, can be viewed as much harsher. 

Enemies to Chums

I find it very interesting that Aufidius and Coriolanus have become great chums especially since they just finish fighting each other. There does not seem to be any hard feelings ot anything. I believe that this whole friend charade is just that a charade. Someone is using the other. Like mention in a previous post, Aufidius is happy that Coriolanus has seeked him (Aufidius) out. Aufidius will use this change to his advantage and try to attack Rome. I believe that Coriolanus is trying to get back at the Senate for banishing him.

Welcome to the dark side, Martius

Aufidius first takes great pleasure in his union with Coriolanus. Martius approaching Aufidius shows an unprecedented level of humility on Coriolanus' part. His plan also shows the lengths he will go to for strategy's sake. Aufidius' language, certainly intertwining homoeroticism with militancy, demonstrates the closeness these former enemies will experience if they join forces. Aufidius compares the excitement of taking his wife with that of seeing Coriolanus before him. This statement draws comparison to Coriolanus and Aufidius' wife, implying a romantic interest. However, I think Aufidius gains more pleasure from seeing Coriolanus dejected from his own land and willing to work with his enemy than the Volscian leader takes from seeing Coriolanus himself.

Echoes of Homoeroticism?

When Coriolanus deserts Rome and appears at his former antagonist Aufidius' house, the latter greets him with this exuberant display of welcome. A quick reading of the passage immediately brings to mind relations of homoeroticism, much like we discussed with Edward II and other plays in the class. Thoughts of masculinity and heroism seem to turn Aufidius on, but there is nothing explicit in the play that defines him clearly as a homosexual. Rather, it seems that this homoerotic dialogue is a part of building manly and heroic imagery. He seems to speak of battle in terms of love, suggesting that combat and war are yields of vital and honorable pleasures, like love. But when Aufidius later speaks of him and Coriolanus "unbuckling helms" and "fisting each other's throat," one cannot help but wonder the terms of these dreams--it certainly appears as though the passionate nature of their relationship is an interesting point for examination.

These words by Coriolanus seen to be very honorable, considering his circumstances. Coriolanus has every right to be angered by the public, and it would be so easy for him to fight back by speaking of his pride and power. This passage reveals an inner struggle in Coriolanus that exists between the proud man that he is and the humble man that he should be to the people. He recognizes his faults, and he wishes to change and become a better man. This struggle that Coriolanus faces is distressing because he must come to terms with himself before he confronts the people. He cannot portray a humble nature if he cannot feel it within himself. It is honorable that Coriolanus realizes what he must do to become a better leader, and we can only hope that he can convey this to the people.

Choleric's Rhapsody

Frustration is eminent in his speech here and his discontent passionate. Coriolanus’ choler conferred venerable qualities of a soldier—his irascibility in combat and warring impulse was recognized as bravery and his hierarchical prejudice was perceived as loyal adherence to societal order. Honorific notions show a traditional willingness to commit atrocities to ensure well-being of their nation. Choleric tendencies conferred venerable for Coriolanus in his past glories, perversely perceived, prevents him from winning the plebeians’ favor. In the present world of the play, only eloquent beguilements seem honest. Ironically, what he destroyed to upholster biliously become what staves his fall.

In this speech, Coriolanus seems to be saying that he will not compromise his "morals" (for lack of a better word) or lower himself to please anyone else. He seems to think that if he gives in, he will be giving up what makes him a man. This is made evident by his referances to ennuchs and virgins. I think he has been trying to be humble until now and this is where he just decides to draw the line.

Measure of a Man

In this impassioned speech, made right before his attempts to placate the public, Coriolanus seems to think that what he is about to do goes against every natural, masculine bone in his body. Coriolanus seems to think that being a man means being able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, with no foreseeable consequences thanks to the fact that one is in fact a man. Women's rights were not exactly taking off by leaps and bounds during the time when Shakespeare was writing, but it does seem interesting that all of the people around Coriolanus are encouraging him to humble himself in exactly the way he is so disgusted with the thought of. The people around Coriolanus do not seem to think it is as big of a deal as he does. Perhaps this speaks to the idea that Coriolanus' ideas about the unchecked nature of masculinity are analogous to his ideas about the unchecked nature of the nobility: that they are both incongruous in the world he now finds himself in.

is he...?

At first, I pretty much agreed with all that has been said. The citizens should be grateful and at least recognize all that Martius has done for them. However, I began wondering how far that gratefulness should go (especially in respect to ongoing elections). The fact that a person is a good soldier doesn’t necessarily make them a good leader. Or discount them as one for that matter. Maybe sometimes we should give them a metal and keep it moving…

The Meta-Game

Honestly, I find this passage an ironic political meta-game. The fact that the citizens go through this thought process announces their disapproval of Coriolanus on principle. By the same token, they are forced to accept Coriolanus because of his deeds and services to Rome. This thought process is mirrored by Coriolanus himself. A number of times, he bashes the citizens and plebeians of Rome for being useless low-lives. And yet, each is forced to accept the other. As for a balance of power, each technically has the power to override the other, but doing so would be committing public suicide. And so, to keep each party from acting "monstrously" the status quo remains unchanged.

Having others lick your wounds

I agree with what Marion said. Having a war hero petition to be consul is hard to turn down. Once he reveals his wounds they understand that they must speak for those wounds, but the image is unusual. The idea of them putting their tongues in the wounds is weird, and vaguely sexual (in a gross way). The open wound is in some ways one of the many held associations that people in the Rennaiscance had with women, but i'm not sure how that pertains to Colonius. Still the gortesque image reveals the citizens unwillingness to vote for Coriolanus, and yet theit roles and the penetrators (i'm sorry that I'm Freuding this...but I think it needs to be said) places them in power. It might also make them more like animals, who lick their wounds.

Guilt them into it

I agree, this quote is about the citizens' view of how Martius' coming out in a gown to display his scars will affect what say they have in the election. That is, they still have a say, but it would seem ungrateful to not honor a war hero with what he's asking for- that is, a consul position. I guess it's an interesting commentary on democracy and campaigning. And feeling guilt.