Answer:
No, none that I am aware of. In Shakespeare’s time, a tragedy meant that the main character falls from fortune to disaster, normally because of a flaw or fate. Obviously, other characters may be unharmed, or may even benefit from the protagonist’s downfall. I’m not writing to make fun of other posters, but we could as easily call the Matrix a tragedy because Agent Smith loses, or say that Titanic has a happy ending for coffin salesmen. Yes, Macduff or Fortinbras do well at the end of their plays, but they are not the protagonists.
For that reason, because a pre-modern tragedy definitionally means that the hero falls, and that’s what happens in Shakespeare’s plays, I’d say no. There are “problem” plays such as the Merchant of Venice, where the opposite happens—a comedy has a partly sad ending, with Shylock’s defeat—but again, it’s all in what the protagonist does, and Antonio (the merchant) wins at its close when his ships return
Answer: Tommy's mother is filled with horror and she is trying to save her son from the viscous crowd who clearly mean to do harm. This could have an emotional effect on the viewer as it displays the mother's drive to save her son, a drive that all mothers have, not to mention the tensions and fears running high in this scenario.
