Speech, especially persuasive speech, will be a central topic of this play, and here we see the necessity of speech for a human being at its most elemental. At its most basic level, speech presumes contact, and the play’s concern centres around two interrelated issues: first, the narrower issue as to whether false persuasive speech for the sake of a just goal (such as the defeat of Troy) is an acceptable means to that end, and second, the broader issue as to what speech ought to communicate. For Neoptolemus, his own development is to regard speech not only as a means of effecting action, but more importantly, as a communication of the self, or of two selves to one another. Neoptolemus’ window into the need of speech to be interpersonal, an authentic communication of one person to another, arises (eventually) from his contact with one who has so long been deprived of such communication. It is Philoctetes’ lack that will expose his neediness for communication to Neoptolemus, and so also communicate a larger truth about speech to him. Neoptolemus learns that speech is that which connects , and is not only a means of accomplishing goals, as Odysseus would have it. To this extent, Neoptolemus preserves his natural inclination toward speech that is measured by virtue, rather than political efficacy; his encounter with Philoctetes reinforces his understanding of justice and virtue as central to good speech. Philoctetes’ , and even his pain, are what assist Neoptolemus in growing in his understanding of speech as requiring a care for virtue. Neoptolemus’ sympathy for Philoctetes allows him to resist an understanding of speech as oriented exclusively toward political efficacy, instead moving him to understand speech as oriented toward building political community and friendship.
Photo provided by Pexels
But also in Greece equivalent attempts date back to the beginning of the 20th century when the French theatre company presented Iphigenia at Avlis on October 29, 1904 at the Panathinaikon Stadium, a place where later (March 16, 1906) Angelos Vlachos directed Oedipus the King. The same tendency to utilize outdoor spaces was shared by others, for Marika Kotopouli staged Antigone at Irodion Attikou on August 20, 1924. Hecuba directed by Photis Politis was staged at the Panathinaikon Stadium on September 26, 1927 starring Emilios Veakis and Marika Kotopouli. The most serious attempt of all, however, in using ancient Greek amphitheatres for staging tragedies is probably that of Angelos and Eva Sikelianos. The couple staged Promitheus Bound at Delphi in 1927 and The Suppliant Women in 1930 (Glitzouris, 1998: 151-159, 147-170). However, it was Demetris Rondiris, who, with his performance of Electra, mentioned above, established the staging of ancient Greek drama in its natural environment. The director’s first concern was to enhance the tragedy with respect toward the text, and the interpretation of the inherent world of values as projected by the dramatist. He believes in the deeply religious but also human spirit of the tragedy and recognizes the generally ritualistic character of ancient Greek theatre. This fact defined his choices when staging performances in outdoor theatres, as an attempt to bring the plays back to their natural environment, according, of course, to the pre-existing Greek and European experience. This is why he lays great weight on the acting, leaving visual enhancement aside, something, which he assigned entirely to his crew.
Greek Tragedy Prof. Vandiver-Literature - English
A milestone, however, in the performances of this period was one held on May 21, 1919 at the Olympia Theatre by the Greek Theatre Company: Oedipus The King, was directed by Photos Politis with Emilios Veakis in the title role. In this performance the director followed the principles of the “master”, Max Reinhardt (Pouchner, 1984: 18-22). He brought the action forward, removing seats from the first rows, introduced compelling lighting, paid particular attention to the acting and movement, the articulation and the dancing of the chorus. (Glitzouris, 2001: 164-166)
Antigone (Summary and Reflection) ..
This last factor, in its turn (the audience) not being familiar with the theatrical act, influenced by ideological and furthermore by sentimental factors by a genuine search of aesthetic pleasure, saw in the stage interpretation of ancient Greek Drama the substitute of its social deadlocks and the satisfaction of its search, overcompensating all that was lacking in its objective reality. Thus, the archaic “katharevousa” dialect, verbalism and the intellectual interpretation of the theatrical word, the obsession in interpreting the original text, the excessive weight placed on the values and notional world of the play at the expense of its aesthetic assessment, were virtues and demands of a large part of the audience who watched performances of ancient Greek tragedies. This audience was very familiar with the genre through multiple and varied adaptations and interpretations of the works by more recent Europeans (V. Alfier, P. Metastasio) but also Greek dramatists, such (D. Vernardakis, Sp. Vasiliades). In contrast, the masses did not share this mania of reviving ancient tragedies. People preferred their own shows; pantomime and Shadow Theatre, Variety performances and Café Aman shows or in the best case, one-act comedies and later on operettas and revues (Hadzipantazis, 1986).
the theatricality of greek tragedy | Download eBook …
At a first glance, twenty such productions, beginning from the late 19th century until the beginning of the 21st, are direct references to specific works of Sophocles. If in our study we include other productions, the original source of which is not entirely clear, as the ancient myth is also present in the works of the other two tragic poets, Aeschylos and Euripides, then the volume of the modern production increases. Beginning from an initial observation, we can determine that, the way in which the works of Sophocles is evaluated and utilised by contemporary Greek playwrights varies. In some instances, ancient models are simply imitated. In other cases, more recent dramatists treat in a creative manner the functionality of mythological archetypes. Sometimes one can witness a superficial influence, whereas at other times one can see a connection of transtextual and post-theatrical type. In other words, according to the social, aesthetic, cultural and ideological circumstances of the given era, the particularity of the individual author, combined with the expectations of the target audience the original works can be recognised, as they transform their ancient models through a fertile dialogue between the past and the present. Some of these works bear the elements of traditional style of writing. They recreate their model, remaining strictly attached to it, while others move onto a postmodernist version of their models, communicating indirectly the Sophoclean drama.