Good theatre suspends you in reality. Good theatre captures a moment in time that could be now. And The Pillowman does this superbly. This is, indeed,Good theatre suspends you in reality. Good theatre captures a moment in time that could be now. And The Pillowman does this superbly. This is, indeed, a deeply disturbing play, chiefly because it could be real.
It all begins with some dark stories. A writer has written some brutal pieces about child murder and butchery. Someone has read his work and has decided to carry out the deeds within them. The writer, Katurian, has been brought in for questioning. The opening scene is reminiscent of Kafka’s The Trial. The protagonist is being investigated and put on trial for events he has no understanding of. Kafkaesque is a word that is on the tip of the performers tongue all through the scene, but it never is actually spoken despite the blatant allusions: it doesn’t quite need to be said. This effect is later removed as the situation becomes clearer.
What replaces it is a relationship straight out of Of Mice and Men. Katurian has a younger brother, one who is strikingly similar to Lenny. His concept of right and wrong is vague, though pure of heart; he will do anything he is told to do. The two brothers have a darker past, an abusive childhood that has bound them together out of survival and mutual affection. The investigators of the crime are certain it was one, or perhaps both, of them that carried out the killings. The questions begin as does the torture, though central to Katurian’s mind is what’s going to happen to his writing if he is found guilty.
“It isn't about being or not being dead, it's about what you leave behind”
[image]
So the play questions the legacy of writing, and the responsibly of its content. Who is to blame in such a situation? Can the writer be held accountable for someone else’s obsessions and misconceptions over his work? This play may all sound terribly bleak, but running through it is a string of irony and self-reflexive moments. The characters draw attention to their own stupidity and the limitedness from the position in which they operate; thus, tragedy is infused with dark comedy making the play a true enjoyment to watch.
If you get the chance, I highly recommend watching a version of this after reading it.
Merged review:
Good theatre suspends you in reality. Good theatre captures a moment in time that could be now. And The Pillowman does this superbly. This is, indeed, a deeply disturbing play, chiefly because it could be real.
It all begins with some dark stories. A writer has written some brutal pieces about child murder and butchery. Someone has read his work and has decided to carry out the deeds within them. The writer, Katurian, has been brought in for questioning. The opening scene is reminiscent of Kafka’s The Trial. The protagonist is being investigated and put on trial for events he has no understanding of. Kafkaesque is a word that is on the tip of the performers tongue all through the scene, but it never is actually spoken despite the blatant allusions: it doesn’t quite need to be said. This effect is later removed as the situation becomes clearer.
What replaces it is a relationship straight out of Of Mice and Men. Katurian has a younger brother, one who is strikingly similar to Lenny. His concept of right and wrong is vague, though pure of heart; he will do anything he is told to do. The two brothers have a darker past, an abusive childhood that has bound them together out of survival and mutual affection. The investigators of the crime are certain it was one, or perhaps both, of them that carried out the killings. The questions begin as does the torture, though central to Katurian’s mind is what’s going to happen to his writing if he is found guilty.
“It isn't about being or not being dead, it's about what you leave behind”
[image]
So the play questions the legacy of writing, and the responsibly of its content. Who is to blame in such a situation? Can the writer be held accountable for someone else’s obsessions and misconceptions over his work? This play may all sound terribly bleak, but running through it is a string of irony and self-reflexive moments. The characters draw attention to their own stupidity and the limitedness from the position in which they operate; thus, tragedy is infused with dark comedy making the play a true enjoyment to watch.
If you get the chance, I highly recommend watching a version of this after reading it....more
Dionysus is my favourite ancient Greek god. Why? Because he is the coolest, simple as.
“He is life's liberating force. He is release of limbs and coDionysus is my favourite ancient Greek god. Why? Because he is the coolest, simple as.
“He is life's liberating force. He is release of limbs and communion through dance. He is laughter, and music in flutes. He is repose from all cares -- he is sleep!"
[image] - The Young Bacchus by Caravaggio, 1595.
Not only is he the god of theatre (a huge passion of mine) but he is also the god of wine, festivals, ecstasy and madness. Every set of self-respecting Gods needs one like him on the team. In a way he represents excess, the excess of human emotion and passion. Every so often we all need a good binge of some sort and any god that denies our needs is a very poor god. Dionysus gets it. He understands.
And he is capable of great good and filling the needs of his subjects, but his whims can easily slip into darkness. In this play he presents himself in a clam collective manner; he does not really represent the aspects of human nature he is god of: he merely facilitates them. He gives man the opportunity to go too far; it’s up to him if he takes it and falls into complete intoxication. And this bespeaks his enthralling power. He is not controlling and does not tamper with free-will, if his subjects worship him to heavily then it is of their own accord.
The Dionysian cult Euripides creates here is one completely necessary in the society of Ancient Greece. He is the solution for the ongoing battle between freedom and restraint. He suggests that the irrational and the indulgent are both necessary for society to function and develop. Any society that denies these things will fall apart in misery. So Dionysus is an important force, but one that should be taken is small measures.
So this is a good play, and it’s completely character driven and loaded with this message (supposedly as a learning tool.) It’s real fun to read....more
These two pieces are both one-man acts and in both cases the men are haunted by the voices of the past, but Beckett never illustrates such things in sThese two pieces are both one-man acts and in both cases the men are haunted by the voices of the past, but Beckett never illustrates such things in straightforward ways.
Beckett makes me think more than most writers do. And that’s kind of important. His plays never really say anything. They don’t give you their meanings, you are left to fill in the gaps their emptiness evokes. There’s always some form of silence, something not quite said.
Krapp’s Last Tape
“Perhaps my best years are gone. When there was a chance of happiness. But I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now. No, I wouldn't want them back.”
[image]
Beckett tells his stories through motions and actions as well as words. The details that go into his stage directions are particular and exact. They are so full of life, a dreary sort of life that accompanies the melancholy and absurd characters he curses with existence. None of them are happy and they all seem to be existing in a space devoid of the joy they once felt at an earlier time, memories haunt them as they suffer through madness and life absent from any real feeling. Krapp, as he listens to his old tapes, is a classic example
Krapp has had a crap life. (Is this an intentional pun, Beckett?) As he listens to the voice recordings of a much younger version of himself, he realises how unfulfilled he is. He laments a girl he once loved and intellectual precision and strength he has now lost through drink and age. The recording move forward with a tremendous amount of momentum and forward movement until Krapp reaches a final realisation: the best years have gone, but the bitterness and disappointment has awarded him with fire.
Fire to do what though? And this question hangs over me as the curtain is lowered. Krapp sits in a dark room thinking about bygone days, as he records his last tape, he is ready to move on and take a drastic action. The fire might just be the energy he needs to take his own life. Death is certainly present in the room through the entirety of this chilling piece of drama.
The Embers
“My father back from the dead to be with me.”
This one was never even meant for the stage: it’s a radio piece instead. It’s a dark and brooding piece about a son who still hears the voices of those departed. They haunt his mind as he walks along the beach, and, like Krapp, he seems to struggle with memories of the past. They pervade the present. It’s the lesser of the two pieces and is dwarfed by the obscurity the ending of the previous one delivers.
I was at Shakespeare’s Globe in London yesterday watching this play and it was fab! I then came home and read it (got to love the literary life!)
The bI was at Shakespeare’s Globe in London yesterday watching this play and it was fab! I then came home and read it (got to love the literary life!)
The best thing about the performance was the fact that Orlando was played by a woman who was less that five feet tall and Rosalind was played by a man was way over six feet tall. Needless to say, this lead to many comic moments. Here’s some shots of the performance:
[image] -Orlando & Rosalind
[image]
They only had to stand next to each other on the stage for the audience to burst out laughing.
The play displays much of what Shakespeare does best. There are explorations into gender politics and sexuality because of the layers added into the play; there are men playing female characters who then in turn pretend to be men, which makes it even more complex. As with most of his comedies, I find the magic of the work is lost on the page. These are plays that are meant to be performed!
Unlike many of Shakespeare’s plays, even the comedies, this was very light and breezy. Nobody died. Nobody suffered. And the ending was a mass matchmaking that only left me feeling warm inside. It’s an entertaining piece to watch, though once you’ve got your head round the plot it won’t make you think any further.
It is a funny piece, but not quite as good as Twelfth Night and I think it suffered a little with a background cast of pretty standard Shakespearean characters rather than standout personalities.
Certainly not his best comedy, though it is still quite fun!
Beckett wrote many strange plays, though sometimes the strange is needed to capture an aspect of reality that is, by its very nature, strange, mysticaBeckett wrote many strange plays, though sometimes the strange is needed to capture an aspect of reality that is, by its very nature, strange, mystical and untouchable.
Good literature, the very best of literature, makes you think and makes you imagine. When you read you put your own design on the book. You interpret it. The answers are not given to you, you must find them if they are, indeed, wanting to be found. Beckett gives you very little. I have some ideas about what the play may represent, but the point is it could resemble a great many things. It is not clear. It is like looking through a murky glass at an indifferent world that could be our own and not our own. With the Endgame it is for you to decide.
“All life long, the same questions, the same answers.”
And I’ve decided three things based upon that rather important quote:
1. The world is evil
“Use your head, can't you, use your head, you're on earth, there's no cure for that!”
Hamm dreams of sleep, of being free to run and make love in nature and in the woods. The ideas in his mind are better than the reality he faces. As such a sense of depression permeates the play, a certain dissatisfaction with everything that is existence. The world is not kind. It is not always good to use and at our end it leaves us dissatisfied and unfulfilled.
Very much in the modernist mode, Beckett’s words capture the disillusionment that permeates his artistic era and, as ever, he captures it using the brilliance of absurdist theatre.
2. The Old world is dead
“I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent.”
[image]
Naggs and Nell, the older generation, are kept in trash bins in the corner of the room. It’s an apt symbol for the death of the old ways, for the old generation, as man moves into the modern world. They are incapable of moving forward so they are left to die in misery along with the values of the nineteenth century. The two have no pulse and blither about bygone days nobody wants to hear about. Their fond memories are mere garbage to their son Hamm. He does not care about their lives or their past experiences because they are dead.
3. The new world isn’t any better because life is absurd
Nothing really changes but remains perpetually the same. The sea, the sky, the stars and the horizon do not differ. Civilisation remains forever grey. There is no meaning to be found in any of it. Hamm and Clov will never represent something or be anything. And to think differently is only a delusion. A cold detached death is what waits for them, again, a meaningless death against a multitude of souls that have littered the endless dark over the ages.
“HAMM: We're not beginning to... to... mean something? CLOV: Mean something! You and I, mean something! (Brief laugh.) Ah that's a good one!”
“Nothing is funnier than unhappiness, I grant you that… Yes, yes, it's the most comical thing in the world. And we laugh, we laugh, with a will, in the beginning. But it's always the same thing. Yes, it's like the funny story we have heard too often, we still find it funny, but we don't laugh any more.”
Pessimism, hopelessness and desperation are what drip maniacally and slowly from the sad words in this play. As it progresses, it gets greyer with each line. The old world may be dead, though the new one is depressed and unhappy: it has no purpose.
Final Thoughts
Beckett would, however, read my decisions and probably tell me to throw myself into the sea. But Beckett’s dead and his words were written to elicit a response. He knew exactly what he was doing, the comical genius bastard that he was. Words do not get cleverer than his....more
I watched the movie last night, then read the screenplay this morning. I’m going back to watch it again tonight. I guess that means I like it, a lot. I watched the movie last night, then read the screenplay this morning. I’m going back to watch it again tonight. I guess that means I like it, a lot.
Here's three things that made the story REAL interesting:
1. Grindelwald’s leadership
[image]
This is the first time we are really seeing his character. And it’s a little more complex than I supposed. Unlike Voldemort, Grindelwald is not inherently evil and he doesn’t appear to desire power for himself (only the fruition of his vision for the world, a better world.) I wonder where he sees himself in the aftermath?
He’s also extremely manipulative and can persuade otherwise good characters to follow him (and not out of fear.) They follow him because there is an undercurrent of truth in his ideas. He wants peace for the world, but, of course, the kind of peace he wants could only be bought with blood and death. I’m looking forward to seeing where this goes, to finding out whether he is a hypocrite in his leadership or a genuine visionary (though I think I already know the real answer.)
The point is, there's more to him than the typical one dimensional villain archetype he was said to be.
2. Young Dumbledore
[image]
Dumbledore has always been a bit of an enigma. He possesses knowledge and history that we know nothing about, so it’s great to see a bit of his backstory explored. Now we all know how these films will end (with whose victory and defeat.) But I am still genuinely interested in seeing it play out. It won’t be a clean victory for sure. There are quite a few characters in here that aren’t even mentioned in the Harry Potter series. No doubt, there will be a few deaths coming in the next one.
3. Nagini as a Maledictus
[image]
This for me was one of the most exciting things about the movie because it left me with me so many questions. At one-point Nagini, Voldemort’s pet snake and horcrux, was once a normal girl who felt love and pain and longed for acceptance. She was cursed to forever take the form of snake in later life, but how did she join the side of evil? I’m sure the next film will give us the answers we seek.
Final thoughts
There are some weak points in the movie such as it’s over fixation with Credence and his lineage, but the reveal of exactly who he is at the end kind of makes it all worth it. I must admit, I really did not see that coming!
Also, a note on the screenplay itself, like the previous one it is just an exact replicate of the movie. There's nothing new here, but I enjoyed reading it nevertheless.
I saw an absolutely brilliant version of this play today at Shakespeare’s Globe in London. It was Mexican themed, full of dancing, gunshots, high raciI saw an absolutely brilliant version of this play today at Shakespeare’s Globe in London. It was Mexican themed, full of dancing, gunshots, high racing emotions and many moments of farcical humour. All in all, it was a great production of an imperfect play.
If I’m ever critical of Shakespeare’s works it’s because I know how excellent Shakespeare can be. The Tempest is one of the best things ever written in the English language. Similarly, Richard II is pure poetry, beautiful and powerful, but it is so unimpressive on the stage. At least, I’ve never seen a decent live version of it. There’s not much room for spectacle in the play. But here’s the tricky thing about Shakespeare, some of his plays are excellent to read and some of them are not. Some are perfect stage pieces, but boring on the page. Some manage to succeed in both realms, but not many. Much Ado About Nothing is a play that is meant to be performed. Like Twelfth Night (and all the comedies) the real genius of the writing does not come through until it is seen in action.
Much Ado About Nothing has a simple plot and it’s built around two central characters, Beatrix and Benedict. Everybody else involved are mere plot devices crafted by Shakespeare. Hero, Claudio and Don Pedro, though playing major parts in the action, don’t really have much in the way of personality or inner-conflict. They are simply there to play off the two central characters against each other, and play each other they most certainly do. A relationship built on mutual hate sounds like an odd concept, but an apt one. Both Beatrix and Benedict have sworn never to marry, so when they finally stumble across their counterparts they are annoyed and in absolute denial about their own feelings.
It’s easy for the audience to spot such a thing, and seeing the characters slowly realise it is wonderful to behold. It leads to many brilliant comedy moments, moments the version I watched was very quick to capitalise on. It was mischievous, witty and a very good piece of fun. The entire cast nailed it. Again, this is a play that really needs to be seen. If you find yourself in London this summer, I certainly recommend going to watch it. If not you could always try the DVD when it is eventually released if you’re really keen.
This is Sir John Falstaff’s play; it was a chance for Shakespeare to pad out one of his most popular characters and give him another comic moment. AndThis is Sir John Falstaff’s play; it was a chance for Shakespeare to pad out one of his most popular characters and give him another comic moment. And he failed completely.
So when Shakespeare wrote this he focused on this one character, and as a result the rest of the play suffered. The cast were all mere plot devices, a means for Falstaff to arrive at his destination (the dénouement) in the woods wearing his antlers. They don’t seem to have the same level of personality or depth that is often attributed to Shakespeare’s characters. The wives of Windsor are rather absent for most of the play, surprisingly. Falstaff’s wooing of them had very little stage time. We see the letter he sent to them both, but little else. As you can probably tell, I didn’t really this. I have very few good things to say about it if any.
Scholars argue that there is much of Shakespeare in this play. Indeed, things such as his application for a coat of arms in his personal life, his desire to move up the social ladder and his love of Ovid’s works. But this is also true for many of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, the rape scene in Titus Andronicus is lifted form Ovid. Not a bad thing of course, but I don’t think it’s enough to make this play worthy of note. Shakespeare was an entertainer, and this is one of his least entertaining plays. The fact that he adapted parts of Ovid doesn’t change this.
It’s also one of his least popular plays, and I really can see why. The plot was rather dull and most of it was in prose rather than verse, so it wasn’t overly pleasant to read either. This isn’t a play I will read again in the future.
Next on my Shakespeare list is A Midsummer’s Night Dream. I’m looking forward to reading it, hopefully it will make me forget about this one!...more
Oedipus has been cursed by fate. After unwittingly killing his farther and marrying his own mother, he was cast out of his own land: he was banished bOedipus has been cursed by fate. After unwittingly killing his farther and marrying his own mother, he was cast out of his own land: he was banished by fate. He is now blind, old and has but only one wish: death.
His sister-daughters (children born of incest with his mother) wish to help in this but his son-brothers want him to return to the land of Thebes alive and well. They have heard a new prophecy concerning his fate, and they have grown to fear it. However, as readers of Oedipus the King learnt, trying to change fate only leads to destiny changing the path; ultimately, the destination will always remain the same: there is no escape. Oedipus is resigned to let the wind take him wherever it may go. He has learnt that he has no power. His past remerges, a dangerous past that the world considers criminal. It is one he tried to avoid, but, again, he could never escape from it. King Creon, Oedipus’ taciturn brother in law is especially angry at Oedipus for the death of Jocasta hurt him severely. It's very easy to judge others in such a situation, but as Oedipus retorts:
"One thing, answer me just one thing. If, here and now, a man strode up to kill you, you, you self-righteous --- what would you do? investigate whether the murderer were your farther or deal with him straight off? Well I know, as you love your life, you’d pay the killer back, not hunt around for justification. "
[image]
As a sequel to Oedipus the King and a prequel to Antigone this play is very much the middle of The Three Theban Plays. Oddly, it seems to be read far less than the other two plays, which I think is a bit of a shame. Granted, it lacks the autonomy of the others, but it is just as important in understanding the trilogy. And this is the crux of the play; it is Oedipus’ moment to defend himself, and give voice to his actions which he was not responsible for. At the same time, the plot foreshadows and leads straight into Antigone and explains much about King Creon's choices.
In terms of action- I speak of the technical connotations of the word as defined by Aristotle in Poetics- the play is lacking. There is very little in the way of tragic elements. It was only performed after Sophocles’ death when the glory days of Athens had set. The play was a reminder to its audiences of what had been lost, Oedipus served as a reminder of an age gone by, one that would never return. Reading the play today, I see the same sense of departure. This line for example as spoke by the Chorus:
“Then it’s the end of Athens, Athens is no more!"
[image]
I love reading Ancient Greek drama; it is so well crafted; it is straightforward yet complex; it is sophisticated yet bold and bloody. Sort of odd really when considering the fact that all deaths were off stage, but you still get the idea from it. I’d love see some modern reproductions of it live....more
The Three Theban Pays are the absolute pillar stone of ancient Greek drama, and in my opinion they contain two of the best plays ever written: OedipuThe Three Theban Pays are the absolute pillar stone of ancient Greek drama, and in my opinion they contain two of the best plays ever written: Oedipus the King and Antigone.
Oedipus the King- because sometimes life's a real bitch.
Fate is unavoidable in ancient Greek Tragedy. Trying to avoid it will only lead to it, and doing nothing will lead you there too. So if a God tells you that you will die at the hands of your son, and that he will then go on to steal your wife, you’d best do nothing because it’s going to happen anyway. Any preventative action you take will only lead to the same ending. So, you’re pretty much screwed. You might as well lie down and accept it. The God's are mean.
But, nope, if you’re like the King of Thebes you’ll leave your infant son for dead instead.
[image]
Poor Oedipus. He really didn’t have much chance in life. He could do nothing to intervene with his own destiny, mainly because his tragic flaw is his lack of awareness about his true origins. He hears a rumour of the prophecy told to his farther, so he endeavours to stay away from him. But, in doing so he is pushed ever closer to his real farther. That’s the problem with being abandoned at birth; you just don’t know who is who in the world! There’s some irony in this somewhere.
Indeed, it suggests that no free will exists at all because any exertions of the supposed free will lead to the predetermined fate. So every action has been accounted for already. The intended audience may have been aware of these powers but Oedipus and his farther were hapless in their wake. They had to both learn the hard way. Oedipus had to recognise it, and in the process he shattered his life: it made him tear out his very eyes. Now that’s real grief. There’s no wonder Aristotle made this his model for the perfect play because this is masterful.
Aristotle’s theory can be used to assist the reader in understanding how the plot contributes to the tragedy. I couldn’t have read tragedy without it. The tragedy is created, in part, by the complexity of its plot which leads towards the catharsis. According to Aristotle’s Poetics the complexity of the plot is established through reversal, recognition and suffering. A simple plot will only establish one of these; therefore, it will have a limited catharsis. The reversal (peritpeteia) is the change of a state of affairs to its opposite, such as the reversal of Oedipus’ identity. The recognition (anaghorsis) is achieved through the acquiring of knowledge, like the knowledge Oedipus gains of his birth. Aristotle argues that an effective plot has its anaghorisis bound up with the peritpeteia. This is because it, “carries with it pity or fear” such as these following lines:
"O god- All come true, all busting to light! O light- now let me look my last on you! I stand revealed at last-” (Lines 1305-9)
[image]
I hope I didn’t lose anyone or bore them to death with my summary of Poetics. The structure is the key; it is everything in delivering the plot. If, in the cathartic moment, the action can evoke suffering through a combination of a reversal of circumstances during a brutally stark recognition, then the ultimate delivery of pity and fear will be achieved. Such is the case with Oedipus. Oedipus’s hamartia, his tragic flaw at the core of his being, is his ignorance, and when the veil is lifted he realises the tragedy of the situation; he realises all too late that fate is unshakable and unconquerable.
He has unknowingly committed incest with his mother and murdered his farther, so, like I said, life is a real bitch.
Oedipus at Colonus
Oedipus has been cursed by fate. After unwittingly killing his farther and marrying his own mother, he was cast out of his own land: he was banished by fate. He is now blind, old and has but only one wish: death.
His sister-daughters (children born of incest with his mother) wish to help in this but his son-brothers want him to return to the land of Thebes alive and well. They have heard a new prophecy concerning his fate, and they have grown to fear it. However, as readers of Oedipus the King learnt, trying to change fate only leads to destiny changing the path; ultimately, the destination will always remain the same: there is no escape. Oedipus is resigned to let the wind take him wherever it may go. He has learnt that he has no power. His past remerges, a dangerous past that the world considers criminal. It is one he tried to avoid, but, again, he could never escape from it. King Creon, Oedipus’ taciturn brother in law is especially angry at Oedipus for the death of Jocasta hurt him severely. It's very easy to judge others in such a situation, but as Oedipus retorts:
"One thing, answer me just one thing. If, here and now, a man strode up to kill you, you, you self-righteous --- what would you do? investigate whether the murderer were your farther or deal with him straight off? Well I know, as you love your life, you’d pay the killer back, not hunt around for justification. "
[image]
As a sequel to Oedipus the King and a prequel to Antigone this play is very much the middle of The Three Theban Plays. Oddly, it seems to be read far less than the other two plays, which I think is a bit of a shame. Granted, it lacks the autonomy of the others, but it is just as important in understanding the trilogy. And this is the crux of the play; it is Oedipus’ moment to defend himself, and give voice to his actions which he was not responsible for. At the same time, the plot foreshadows and leads straight into Antigone and explains much about King Creon's choices.
In terms of action- I speak of the technical connotations of the word as defined by Aristotle in Poetics- the play is lacking. There is very little in the way of tragic elements. It was only performed after Sophocles’ death when the glory days of Athens had set. The play was a reminder to its audiences of what had been lost, Oedipus served as a reminder of an age gone by, one that would never return. Reading the play today, I see the same sense of departure. This line for example as spoke by the Chorus:
“Then it’s the end of Athens, Athens is no more!"
[image]
I love reading Ancient Greek drama; it is so well crafted; it is straightforward yet complex; it is sophisticated yet bold and bloody. Sort of odd really when considering the fact that all deaths were off stage, but you still get the idea from it. I’d love see some modern reproductions of it live.
Antigone
Antigone is a real heroine; she stands up for what she believes in. She was faced with a strong dilemma. The law of man, the word of her uncle the king, demands that her brother's body remains unburied in the open with no funeral rights, to be savaged by animals. For King Creon, this is a symbolic justice for a traitor and a rebel, but the laws of the God’s, and the ruling of Antigone’s own mind, demands that she gives him libations (death rights) that all men deserve. She buries the body and faces the consequences of the crime.
Creon: And still you had the gall to break this law?
Antigone: Of course I did. It wasn't Zeus, not in the least, who made this proclamation-not to me Nor did that justice, dwelling with the gods beneath the earth, ordain such laws for men. Nor did I think your edict had such force that you, a mere mortal, could override the gods.
[image]
So, like I said she’s a heroine, for standing up against tyranny, but she isn’t the play’s tragic hero: it’s clearly King Creon. Who has the right of this situation? It is easy to brand Creon a tyrant, though to do so overlooks the reasoning behind his actions. In punishing Antigone’s dead brother, her rebellious dead brother, he is sending a political message to those that threaten the peace of Thebes. In reality he is being an effective, albeit harsh, ruler. When his niece breaks his law, he has no choice but to punish her as he would any man. He couldn’t allow her to be an exception to the rule, to do so would be to undermine the law of the land and his politics: it would be to make him a hypocrite. But, to sentence her to death, that’s a little extreme.
Thus, Sophocles presents a beautifully conflicted situation. There is no longer a discernible sense of right or wrong, only a thin line of morality that separates a tyrant from a man of justice. And his conviction only gets worse; he refuses to hear what his son and the city (the chorus) think about the situation. He only sees his narrow-minded sense of justice, and ignores the effects it will have on his loved ones. He has no doubts about his actions, and demonstrates the questionable nature of a cold approach to kingship. The laws of man are not always right. Something Creon simply cannot perceive. To his mind, he is morally right, a man of good character and a king of honour. Is this not the most dangerous of leaders?
Creon: I will take her down some wild, desolate path never trod by men, and wall her up alive in a rocky vault, and set out short rations, just the measure piety demands to keep the entire city free of defilement. There let her pray to the one god she worships: Death—who knows?—may just reprieveher from death. Or she may learn at last, better late than never, what a waste of breath it is to worship Death.
[image]
And this is what makes him the play’s tragic hero. His hamartia, his tragic flaw in Aristotle terms, is his severe lack of judgement, and his inability to perceive the wrongness of his decree. The reversal, recognition and suffering come in the form of the priest Tiresias, an old wise man who speaks to the Gods. He tells Creon what will happen if he persists down his current path, and after much resistance, Creon finally relents his folly. But it is far too late. The blood has already been shed. Tragedy has already struck, death has already struck: Creon is left in tatters. It is the hardest of lessons to learn.
So what do we learn from this? Greek tragedy was didactical in purpose; it was used as a learning tool, a means of imparting wisdom to the audience. What is Sophocles message? For me it’s quite simple: open your eyes and your heart. Never presume that you are right and an absolute morale authority. For Creon, his realisation came too late. The result was a sacrifice he will never forget, Antigone's death, and the one most readers seem to sympathise with. But I implore you to look further into the play, and consider the full role of Creon. To overlook him is to overlook the point of the work:
“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.”
This play is a spectacular piece of work, though I think reading the other two plays helps to elucidate its greatness. For me, this book is one everybody should read at least once in their lifetime....more
“Don't think you can frighten me by telling me that I am alone. France is alone. God is alone. And the loneliness of God is His strength.”
[image]“Don't think you can frighten me by telling me that I am alone. France is alone. God is alone. And the loneliness of God is His strength.”
[image]
Thus spoke Joan when her allies, those she had made great, abandoned her to death. Such loyalty they showed her in life. Without her they literally would have got nowhere. Joan was a solider, and in the end they treated her like a solider; they pointed her at France’s enemies and when her work was done they cast her aside. She was expendable to them, a mere commodity they tolerated when she was useful and never afterwards when her “miracles” began to diminish.
And this is the true tragedy of this play and tale. Joan believed in her visions; she thought the voices she heard were divinely sent. By today’s standards, she would probably have been diagnosed with a disorder such as bipolar of schizophrenia. But who can say what is real and what is not real? For Joan it was very much real, and for those that followed her it was real too. The story of Joan is almost impossible to believe; it is so extraordinary: it defies logic. It’s like an anomaly on the historical timeline. There must have been something truly incredible about her, something that defies rationality, for her to achieve such success....more
[image] ************************************************** Imagine that you are the most successful musician of the age. You’re the court composer. You’ve worked so hard for your role, and every action you take is dignified and intelligent. You act sophisticated and regal, as an attempt to match your persona to the music. Everyone respects your opinion and trusts you on all matters music.
Your name is Antonio Salieri, and you’re about to meet your reckoning.
“I looked on astounded as from his ordinary life he made his art. We were both ordinary men, he and I. Yet from the ordinary he created Legends--and I from Legends created only the ordinary!”
[image]
[image]
One day you hear rumours of a new composer. He is said to be brilliant in his vibrancy. You go and watch him perform an opera and you collapse. You fall to your knees and you weep. You weep like you’ve never have before because you know that this man is better than you. He has a gift, a talent sent from god, one you wish for and one that you are mightily jealous of. Nobody else quite understands his brilliance. Everyone is dumb to music. But you know. You have to live with the knowledge that this man is the best musician of the age and nobody else knows.
So what do you do with this brilliant man called Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? This man who is a complete natural?
"I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings.”
[image]
[image]
Do you serve the music and help this man better himself? Or do you think about your own vain image and try to destroy him so you can remain in your roles? Despite your assertions Salieri of being wronged by this man’s existence, you’re the villain of this play. You ruin him. You destroy him. And you break him. You turn the individualistic Mozart, he who is essentially a mad genius, into a blubbering wreck. Mainly because your stupid sense of self image is insulted that a man such as him, one who acts like a child and is loud and obnoxious, could be better than you.
But, as hard as it is for me to say it, this is only one reading of this play. In a weird sort of way, you could argue that Salieri’s actions bring the best out of Mozart. He pushes him to the depths of despair and depravity, and although he is destroyed in the process, he produces some wonderful music pieces in the journey. Had this never happened he would still have created fine music, but it wouldn’t have been the same music. His later pieces in the play were fuelled by woe and misery; they took on a different shape and form.
The two men become bound together through the jealously of the lesser. He tails on Mozart’s achievements with the ultimate goal of being remembered as a shaping form in his destiny even if it is for baser reasons. At the core of things Salieri is very human, though a greater man would have realised his folly and acted in the benefits of the arts first. This is a beautifully conflicted play, and whist it is enjoyable to read, it is best to be seen. The version I watched last night in a live screening (the images I have included in this review are from the version) was stunning. Hearing the music alongside the performance is essential....more
I saw a live screening of this last night at the theatre I work at. Yes, I work at a theatre. I get paid to watch shoTalk about dream casting:
[image]
I saw a live screening of this last night at the theatre I work at. Yes, I work at a theatre. I get paid to watch shows. I’m supposed to be keeping an eye on the audience to make sure they behave themselves. They almost always do, so I can sit back and enjoy the performance. It’s not a very hard job.
I read this play a number of years ago now, and all it did was bewilder me. I had no idea what was going on. Well, I had some ideas, but it’s one of those plays where there is no definitive interpretation: its left open for the audience to try and decipher what is going on. Watching a performance of it did help things. I can make a few guesses as to what I think this play is about, but that could be just this particular version's interpretation of certain events. They could have leaned on certain aspects and presented them slightly differently.
So here’s what we know: two old men return from a pub. They’ve just met each other for the first time. They have a few drinks and spend some time getting to know each other. They have a similar past, they’re both poets and both of their wives have left them at some point in their lives. Hirst (Sir Patrick Stewarts’ character) has an emotional breakdown as Spooner breaks through the surface of his cold shell. They still act like they don’t know each other. They go to bed, Spooner is locked on the stage (front room) for the night and darkness ensures.
The next day Hirst greets Spooner like he is an old friend; he recollects this man from his past and begins to reveal secret affairs he was involved in under his friend’s nose. So why the sudden shift? There are a few ways to take this. Either the characters were pretending- playing a little dance with one and another- or Hirst is mentally ill. There are suggests of early on-set dementia in his dialogue. The set used in this version reminded me of a prison or a closed-in mind where the walls are slowly coming in. The characters are trapped here for their own reasons.
“You are in no man's land. Which never moves, which never changes, which never grows older, but remains forever, icy and silent.”
[image]
Hirst has some incredible lines; lines that make you question the reality of this play. At one point I considered that the entire thing may be a fabrication of his consciousness. None of these people are here, only he sits in this room working out his daemons. The characters are people from his past, people he once met, people he could have once been and people he wants to reconcile with. It’s hard to decipher. But I think this reading does have some faults and merits. Then there are the war associations, the nuclear disarmament badge that Spooner wears and the frequent reference to what the characters were doing during the war. How does this tie in with the title? The true remarkability of this play is that is there so much more to it than it initially appears. I want to watch it again, and read it again to see if I can read between the lines and figure it all out. I don't think I'll be able to though! ...more
Zeus is such a tyrant; he just wanted to keep all that power to himself. So when the noble hearted Prometheus gave a little bit of it to man, Zeus wasZeus is such a tyrant; he just wanted to keep all that power to himself. So when the noble hearted Prometheus gave a little bit of it to man, Zeus was rather angry; thus, he punishes Prometheus rather severely: he is chained to rock where an eagle eats his liver, only for it to grow back overnight for the next day’s feed. This is perpetually repeated.
But what of Prometheus’s reasons. Why did he give man fire?
He did it because he saw that man needed it. It wasn’t the simple reckless theft as Zeus would have it be: it was benevolence. Prometheus is a titan, a race of giants of incredible size that possess great strength; however, they have little intellect. Prometheus is the exception to the rule. He saw in man a smaller version of himself; he realised that salvation resided in improving one’s intellect, like his own did, so he gave them a tool in which they could use to develop. Does he sound like a bad guy? No. He doesn’t. His only crime was disobedience. His fate eternal torture:
[image]
Prometheus is, naturally, quite annoyed at the entire situation. He has spent years in service to this new God; he helped him win his dominion. This is how he is repaved? He knows that Zeus will never relent, so he turns to prophecy to construe the tyrant’s fall. He speaks to the chorus and to various demi-gods to make his plans known. He is very much the victim in this play. He only ever wanted to help mankind, but in doing so he accidently threatened the position and authority of the Gods. Not a thing to be taken for granted by those in power.
"Then beneath the earth those hidden blessings for man, bronze, iron, silver and gold—who can claim to have discovered before me? No one, I am sure, who wants to speak to the purpose. In one short sentence understand it all: every art of mankind comes from Prometheus.
So the situation becomes morally complex. Although his actions were intended to be kind, he very much overstepped a boundary. Man has prospered with his gift, but it wasn’t Prometheus’s to give. Perhaps the Gods were withholding it for a reason beyond their own preservation. Man has developed medicine and trade form fire, but he has also developed war and conquest. He has become more productive, more dangerous. Zeus could simply have taken fire back from man, though he has a point to make in his actions. He wants Prometheus to see his “mistake” and live with the consequences. Isn’t Zeus just lovely?
I love how Aeschylus has banded this situation together. He plays on the audience’s sympathy for his hero, but he also shows the danger he possesses. As ever, with Ancient Greek drama the morale dilemma is the driving force of the plot. I’d love to see this performed; it’s a true shame the rest of the trilogy didn’t survive, but that’s where we look to Percy Shelley’s interpretation of the second play Prometheus Unbound. And wonder at the power of the poet’s ability to take Aeschylus’s source material and make it so completely his own without destroying it. ...more
I really don’t buy the irony. Here is a play by a very young Shakespeare trying to appeal to the masses; here is a play that purposely appeals to the I really don’t buy the irony. Here is a play by a very young Shakespeare trying to appeal to the masses; here is a play that purposely appeals to the misogynistic beliefs of its early audiences, and I really don’t like it.
This is what should have happened at the end:
Katherine:
I’m a Shrew; I’m a woman who stands up For herself and for her sisters alike I have a voice; I will not be tamed by Men who think themselves overlords!
Instead we have a rather meek speech in which a broken woman who has been deprived of sleep and food agrees to live under her husband’s thumb. Some may call this the comedy element, but I just can’t see it in that light. I didn’t find anything funny about the situation. Thankfully, Shakespeare learnt to do much better. ...more
Be bloody, bold, and resolute. Laugh to scorn The power of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth.
Poor old Macbeth. You were doomed from the verBe bloody, bold, and resolute. Laugh to scorn The power of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth.
Poor old Macbeth. You were doomed from the very first act. Your mistake was believing in hearsay, prophecy and half-truths. You were an excellent Thane, noble and strong. But you were never meant to be King. You should never have told your wife about the witches, that way the fires of your ambition would never have been fanned.
You only committed in halves to the witches advice. You needed to go the full way or not at all. For you are bloody. Your butcher’s work in King Duncan’s tent saw to that. Your soldier’s work on the battlefield also saw to that. You weren’t afraid to get your hands dirty and in this you were bold and daring, but none would ever call one such as you resolute. Your conscience got the better of you, it made you weak and vulnerable, and because of this you failed. Your rule failed. Your sword arm failed. You needed to go the full way or not at all.
Desperation, paranoia and butchery are what followed your indecisiveness. You killed those that could have been loyal; you killed those that could have remained friends. And it was your doom. You created your own haunting, your own end. You listened to the advice of the witches when you should have followed your own path, your own mind. Their words killed you. Your faith in them killed you. Macduff was defeated at your feet, but your fear conquered you. Their words unmanned you.
Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth! Beware Macduff. Beware the thane of Fife. Dismiss me. Enough.
Sean Barrs
>
Books:
plays
(47)
Loading...
