Once overlooked as one of Shakespeare's lesser works, Titus Andronicus has emerged through critical reassessment as a vital piece of both performance and scholarship. Jonathan Bate's examination highlights the play’s integration of classical influences from Ovid and Seneca, illustrating its journey from sensationalism to recognition for its thematic depth and neo-Senecan elements. This transformation has been partly driven by productions like Peter Brook's 1955 staging and Julie Taymor’s 2000 film, each elucidating the play’s performative strengths.

Central to the play is its examination of violence and revenge, themes that contemporary critics like Robert S. Miola and Stephen X. Mead examine through Ovidian myths and ritualistic portrayals of violence. Jacques Berthoud views the play as reflecting societal chaos, a perspective echoed by Jane Hiles and Lawrence N. Danson, who articulate the play's exploration of societal norms and rhetoric.

Race and gender dynamics are also at the forefront of Titus Andronicus scholarship. Arthur L. Little, Jr. interprets Lavinia as a symbolic sacrifice, whereas Francesca T. Royster analyzes Aaron and Tamora as embodiments of racial extremes. Ian Smith and Emily Detmer-Goebel further explore the racial undertones surrounding Aaron the Moor and the era's anxiety over female agency through Lavinia's character. These interpretations underscore the play's engagement with themes of difference and identity.

Innovative adaptations continue to influence the critical landscape. Mary Lindroth and Martha Nochimson commend Taymor's film for its bold styling, while evaluations by Jim Welsh and John Tibbets praise the film's powerful performances. Directors like Terrence O'Brien and James Edmondson have emphasized the play’s stylized violence and horror, as discussed by Peter Marks and Normand Berlin. Conversely, Katherine Duncan-Jones critiques a lack of coherence in recent productions, reflecting the ongoing debates about how best to stage the play.

The scholarly examination of Titus Andronicus delves into its classical roots, structural composition, and thematic juxtapositions of comedy and tragedy. Clifford Chalmers Huffman and Niall Rudd explore its Roman influences, while D. J. Palmer refutes the view of the play as formless. Natalia Pikli highlights its comedic and tragic blend, and E. Eugene Giddens and Nicholas R. Moschovakis discuss the religious critiques embedded in the narrative. Shakespeare’s portrayal of Rome, analyzed by G. K. Hunter and Naomi Conn Liebler, parallels the tensions of Elizabethan England, as Virginia Mason Vaughan suggests.

Through its multifaceted exploration of revenge, brutality, and social norms, Titus Andronicus continues to provoke scholarly debate and reinterpretation. As Alan Hughes notes, the play’s violence remains a focal point of interest, while critics like Molly Easo Smith illustrate its enduring philosophical relevance. The contentious themes and performative challenges of Titus Andronicus ensure its place as a compelling subject of study within Shakespearean scholarship.